TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching

What is Grammar?
• Language user’s subconscious internal system
• Linguists’ attempt to codify or describe that system
“Grammar is the business of taking a language to pieces, to see how it works.” (David Crystal)
• Grammar is the system of a language. People sometimes describe grammar as the "rules" of a language;
but in fact no language has rules. If we use the word "rules", we suggest that somebody created the rules
first and then spoke the language, like a new game. But languages did not start like that. Languages
started by people making sounds which evolved into words, phrases and sentences. No commonly-spoken
language is fixed. All languages change over time. What we call "grammar" is simply a reflection of a
language at a particular time.
• Grammar is the mental system of rules and categories that allows humans to form and interpret the
words and sentences of their language.
• Grammar adds meanings that are not easily inferable from the immediate context. The kinds of
meanings realized by grammar are principally:
• representational - that is, grammar enables us to use language to describe the world in terms of
how, when and where things happen e.g. The sun set at 7.30. The children are playing in the garden.
• interpersonal - that is, grammar facilitates the way we interact with other people when, for
example, we need to get things done using language.
e.g. There is a difference between:
Tickets!
Tickets, please.
Can you show me your tickets?
May see your tickets?
Would you mind if I had a look at your tickets?

Grammar is used to fine-tune the meanings we wish to express.

Pedagogical grammar, which we may define as a grammar developed for learners of a foreign language,
draws on two separate but interrelated areas of theory: firstly, descriptive models of grammar, which can
be incorporated into pedagogical reference grammars and teaching materials and formulated in ways
which make the description accessible to the learner, and secondly, theories of second-language
acquisition, which will provide the basis for classroom methodology.
Considerable discussion (see Dirven 1990, Chalker 1994) has been given to the differences between
pedagogical and linguistic grammar, variously termed ‘theoretical’ or ‘scientific’, in particular concerning
the extent to which a pedagogical description should have a theoretical basis and what this basis should
be. Despite the large number of reference grammars on the market and the important role which grammar
rules play in many classrooms, there appears to be relatively little coherent theory underlying rule
formulation. This is somewhat surprising since as Dirven (1990) points out ‘learners can be and are
misled into all kinds of wrong generalisations by the inaccurate rule formulations in their textbooks’.
Some grammarians have attempted to give a theoretical basis to their rules: for example, Leech, Svartvik
(1975) draw on the linguistic model of *functional/systemic grammar; Swan (1994) outlines his ‘design
criteria’ for rule formulation; Newby (1989) derives his rules from his own ‘notional grammar’ model
(1989a). Yet on the whole the area of rule formulation is one that is relatively unexplored (see Westney
1994).
Of the two theoretical areas that comprise pedagogical grammar – description and methodology – it is the
latter that has been the main focus of attention and which has, at recurrent periods in the history of
language teaching, represented a highly contentious topic. The main bones of contention concern: - the
aims of grammar teaching (knowing about grammar or using grammar; manipulating sentences or free
production) - the categorisation of grammar (form, meaning, use) into units which will form a syllabus or
teaching objectives - the extent to which grammar should be dealt with separately from other aspects of
language - the use of rules, in particular in how far a cognitive focus on grammar rules assists
acquisition - the type of grammatical exercises and activities which will lead to automatization.

1|Page
 TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching
In modern grammar teaching the influences of the following approaches are most strongly discernible or
influential.
Traditional grammar. Grammar is defined primarily as a set of forms and structures, which comprise
the main focus of the textbook syllabus. Whilst grammatical meaning plays an important role, it is dealt
with in an unsystematic way. The sentence is the main unit of analysis and emphasis is placed on the
student's ability to form correct sentences. The usual classroom methodology is based on presentation,
explanation, practice. Learning is seen largely as a conscious process and grammar rules are used
deductively; that is to say, they are explained by teacher or textbook prior to the practice stage. The most
common forms of exercise type are gapped sentences, pattern drills and sentences for transformation,
reflecting a form-based, rather uncontextualized view of grammar. Grammatical competence is measured
according to the student’s ability to manipulate sentences, rather than being performance-oriented.
Communicative grammar. Language is seen not only as a formal system but primarily as the process of
communicating messages between human beings in actual contexts, grammar being a means of
expressing certain types of meanings through grammatical forms. Attempts to recategorise grammatical
meaning in terms of *functions and *notions were only partly successful since they did not go very far in
addressing the need for pedagogical grammar to give an accurate any systematic specification of
meaning. Since, however, the focus of aims had shifted from formal correctness towards communicative
effectiveness, the ‘grammar vacuum’ tended to go unnoticed or was patched up in textbooks by a
structural-functional organisation or, in the case of the ‘extremist fringe’ of communicative teaching,
grammar was dispensed with altogether. As far as grammatical rules were concerned, a distinction was
made between ‘knowing about’ grammar and ‘knowing how’ to use it, referred to as declarative vs
procedural knowledge (see Johnson 1994), which led to shift of focus from analysis to use. Rules tended
to be dealt with inductively, that is to say the understanding emerges from use, rather than the other way
round. Various important features of communicative methodology can also be applied to grammar; in
particular, a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach based on small-group oral activities (*information gap and
similar communicative games), which is reflected in a number of grammar practice books (for example
Ur 1989). Whilst the communicative approach brought many benefits in the areas of methodology, its
failure to integrate grammar in a coherent way led to the widespread but quite false ‘grammar vs
communication’ dichotomy.
Acquisition-based approaches to grammar. In the 1980s various factors led some methodologists to take a
quite different view of grammar. At the core of this movement was an increasing interest in the
psychological processes underlying first-language acquisition and the belief that many of these processes
could apply to second languages if suitable learning environments and conditions were provided. The
best-known proponent of this view was Stephen *Krashen (1981 etc), who distinguished between
learning – with a conscious focus on grammar (explicit rules, terminology etc) and automatic,
unconscious acquisition. It was only through the latter that students could achieve communicative
competence. The proposed method entailed providing learners with what he termed comprehensible input
and allowing the intake process to function automatically, following an innate acquisition order for which
the learner's brain was already 'wired up' and which could not be influenced by structuring the input.
Despite – or perhaps because of - their rather simplistic nature, these views enjoyed considerable appeal
in some quarters and were part of a more general ‘anti-grammar’ movement. This was especially the case
in Britain, which unlike most other European countries, had seen the abandonment in schools of formal
grammar teaching.
Language awareness approaches to grammar. In recent years, particularly under the influence of
educational psychologists, renewed interest has been shown in the special role of the learner in formal
educational in general and of the specific nature of various cognitive processes linked to learning a
language in particular. Central to this view, which is part of a wider learner autonomy credo, is the notion
of language awareness – that learners should be guided towards focusing on aspects of language and be
encouraged to use various cognitive strategies to explore for themselves how language works. Teachers
should not ‘impose’ their own grammatical knowledge on learners but should be facilitators of the
learning process. Thus, grammar rules explained by the teacher give way to consciousness-raising or
discovery techniques and tasks given to students.
Descriptive versus Prescriptive Grammar
Section 1: Framing the Issue
A definition of a descriptive grammar: A descriptive grammar is typically studied by linguists,
anthropologists, ethnographers, psychologists, or other researchers who seek to identify how the grammar
2|Page
 TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching
of a language is actually used in various contexts and for various purposes. (Books that describe and
present the grammar of any language are called reference grammars, or sometimes "a grammar" by non-
specialists.) In this light, sentences such as Him and me, we are neighbors or I don't know nothing simply
reflect how the language is used by its speakers. Among other considerations, a good descriptive
grammar also takes into account cultural and social variables that, in many cases, determine how
language is produced and understood. In an academic sense, a descriptive grammar of a language is a
theory that has attempts to explain how a particular language works (Leech, Deuchar, & Hoogenraad,
2006). Anthropologically speaking, a descriptive grammar seeks to formulate syntactic rules that are
based on the way a language is actually used for communication, but not what these rules should be.
A definition of a prescriptive grammar: A prescriptive grammar, on the other hand, specifies how a
language should be used and what grammar rules should be followed. A prescriptivist view of language
implies a distinction between "good grammar" and "bad grammar," and its primary focus is on standard
forms of grammar and syntactic constructions. Among native speakers of practically any language, a
prescriptivist approach to grammar often encompasses many ideas, opinions, and judgments about how
and when grammar rules should be used. Thus, for example, the sentence Him and me, we are neighbors
would be considered ungrammatical because it violates at least two grammar rules: (1) object forms of
pronouns "him and me" should not be used in the sentence-initial or subject-noun position, and (2) only
one noun or noun phrase can play the role of the sentence subject, and in this case, "we" (Greenbaum,
1996). Prescriptive grammars supply the rules for using or not using (e.g., ain't or nobody knows
nothing) specific grammar constructions.
Examples of prescriptive grammar rules can be found in practically every guide to "good" language
usage, grammar rule book, or grammar guide. The classical examples of prescriptive English grammar
rules that seem to be broken more often than not include, for instance:
• A sentence (or a clause) should not end on a preposition (also called "stranded prepositions"), e.g., This
is what I came here for or Where are you going to?
• Singular subject nouns (or pronouns) should have singular pronoun references, e.g., Every student needs
to open their books on page 20 or Nobody did their homework.
• In the subject position, the pronoun "who" should be used, and in the object position, "whom" is
appropriate e.g., I gave it to who I always give it or Who did you talk to?
• With non-count nouns (e.g., money, water, or equipment), "little" or "less" should be used, and "few" or
"fewer" is for countable nouns, e.g., I work in a small office with less than 20 people or The crowd that
comes here gets fewer and fewer every year.

Section 2: Making the Case

The ongoing debate about the usage, usefulness, and purposes of prescriptive and descriptive grammars
has been continuing since the early history of writing, literacy, and attempts at language standardization.
As a scientific undertaking, descriptive grammars precede prescriptive grammars: a language needs to be
carefully and thoroughly studied and described before any sort of prescriptions can be formulated. On the
other hand, historically, language (e.g., spelling and pronunciation) and grammar prescriptions have been
established and maintained by means of social hierarchy and class based stratification, as well as by civic
institutions that are endemic to all human societies.
In a narrow sense, prescriptive grammars can be seen as rules for standard and "proper" uses of language
for language users to follow them. For example, a prescriptive grammar would dictate that the sentence
There's not enough chairs for everybody should be corrected to state There are not enough chairs for
everyone. Prescriptive grammars are often employed for teaching those who use nonstandard or
nonnative language forms (Birch, 2005).
From a broader perspective, prescriptive grammars serve to establish the language standard, in
accordance with the socio-linguistic norms of a society and with the overarching objective of achieving
effective and normed communication. By and large, it is widely assumed that prescriptive grammars are
conservative by their very nature and in their purpose, and thus are not easily given to language
innovation and change.
Grammar descriptions almost always use the standard (and prescriptive grammars) as a point of
departure. Variations in grammar constructions are typically examined as deviations from the standard,
despite descriptive grammarians' claims that all varieties are considered to be equal and equally valid. In
the final count, much of what grammar descriptions actually accomplish is rooted in grammar rules and

3|Page
 TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching
structural grammar at least to an extent because explanatory grammars need to have some measure of
social and linguistic validity (Cook, 2003).
Section 3: Pedagogical Implications
Prescriptive grammars can be largely seen as guiding principles of language style and standard usage
socially accepted as norms of effective communication (Hinkel, 2004). By and large, prescriptive
grammars dominate in schooling, teaching, testing and assessment, publishing, and editing. The uses of
prescriptive grammars are closely interrelated with social and value judgments that can reflect a speaker's
or a writer's social status, education levels, professional aspirations, and possibilities for social and
economic mobility.
As has been reported in a large number of research publications, learning to read well by means of simply
being exposed to written prose has been proven to be less than productive for most learners. On the other
hand, however, developing grammar analysis skills and noticing how grammar rules affect the meaning
and construction of the text can prove to be of greatest benefit when learning to read well in another
language (Andrews, 2006; Birch 2005).
As many practicing teachers and language professionals have noted on many occasions, some examples
of prescriptive grammar in fact sound very odd (e.g., It was I who came to see you last night). Some
corpus data (see the work of Peter Trudgill) suggests that only 10% of English speakers employ
prescriptive grammar rules in their daily communications (most belong in what is known as the
"professional class"). On the other hand, the descriptive grammars that are employed by a large majority
of language users to communicate can be perceived as inappropriate in circumstances that call for
linguistic formality and formal register. It is important for language teachers and learners to be familiar
with both prescriptive and descriptive grammars.
From the pragmatic perspective of everyday living, studying, working, making impressions, or merely
dealing with people and language in all manner of places and settings, using both descriptive and
prescriptive grammars is simply unavoidable.
While prescriptive grammar rules and standards have always resided in language teaching, language
testing and assessment, grammar textbooks, and writing guidebooks, more recent and contemporary
analyses of language corpora do away with prescriptions and collect and analyze grammar uses and data
as they appear in real-life and in the language of its users. Although some of the materials in various
language corpora are derived from published texts – and hence are based on prescriptive grammar rules,
by and large, for those who are interested in descriptive grammars, at present, opportunities for becoming
familiar with real-life descriptive grammars are practically limitless (Greenbaum & Quirk, 1990).
SEE ALSO: Grammar in Foreign and Second Language Classes, Grammar Teaching in Beginner and Advanced Level Classes,
Grammar Translation Method, Teaching Grammar

References

Andrews, L. (2006). Language exploration and awareness: A resource book for teachers (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum. Birch, B. (2005). Learning and teaching English grammar, K-12. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cook, G.
(2003). Applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenbaum, S. (1996) The Oxford English grammar. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. (1990). A student's grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L2 and L1 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 275-
301. Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum. Leech, G.N., Deuchar, M. & Hoogenraad, R. (2005). English grammar for today (2nd ed.). London:
Macmillan.

Further Readings

Finegan, E. (2012). Language: Its structure and use (6th ed). Boston: Wadsworth. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Celce-Murcia, M.
(2015). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course, (3nd ed.) Boston: Cengage.

4|Page