#49, Research Article: ‘Grammar in Second and Foreign Language Pedagogy’ by Anindya Syam Choudhury

The issue of “grammar instruction” in Second/Foreign Language Learning Teaching is among the most hotly debated ones. Of course, there is no gainsaying that grammatical competence alone cannot account for what is involved in the mastery of a language. However, the reaction against grammar teaching which resulted due to the communicative approach revolution has certain inherent weaknesses. This article evaluates the role of grammar in Second/Foreign language pedagogy and subsequently goes on to show how grammar is, in fact, so important that it cannot be ignored. Hence the issue now is no longer whether grammar is to be taught or not but rather how grammar items are to be taught most effectively. With this end in view, the article looks into a model of task-based grammar teaching, which blends grammar instruction with communicative tasks so that accuracy is not sacrificed at the altar of fluency.

Grammar teaching in English as Second Language/ English as a Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) pedagogy has always been a contentious issue. In fact, there has been a pendulum swing regarding whether grammar should be taught or not. Before the advent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the 1970’s, for instance, grammar was in a position of domination in language education, with curricula being organized around it. However, the supremacy of grammar was questioned when developments in the field of Sociolinguistics in the seventies challenged the traditional notions about the nature of language and learning. One of the primary reasons for the rejection of a narrow focus on grammatical forms and structures in language learning was the blurring of the notion of ‘correctness’ of language thanks to the investigation of language varieties. Also, sociolinguists like the American Dell Hymes went on to put forward a broader concept of ‘communicative competence’, which drew attention to language use in social context. This had a tremendous impact on language teaching, encouraging a more critical look at language and sharpening an awareness of the need to make language relevant to students’ needs and to provide opportunities for language use in the classroom.

However, these developments led some theorists, methodologists, teachers and syllabus designers to go overboard so much so that many of them started advocating a ‘no grammar’ approach in second and foreign language teaching and learning as in their opinion grammar teaching didn’t produce proficient second language users. But should grammar be blamed for such a predicament? The failure actually stems from the inadequacy of the methodologies that have traditionally been used to teach grammar, the methodologies which have failed to recognise the crucial distinction between teaching about language and teaching the use of language which in turn has led to a sort of an unbridgeable chasm between the true goal of language teaching and the means employed to achieve the goal. The true goal of all second language teaching is to produce students who can communicate well in the second language, comprehend and create at will novel utterances that conform to the grammatical system of the language (whether in speech or writing). What this entails is that we, as the teachers of English, should facilitate “free and unfettered language use, by providing our students with the linguistic means to create novel utterances through a carefully designed and presented program they can digest and enjoy.” (Rivers: 1983, p.33). But traditionally the language teacher has been focusing primarily on the “means” only, failing to recognise the need to encourage students to use these means to express meanings they themselves wish to communicate. For instance, the language teacher traditionally has been teaching discrete points of grammar in separate lessons, focusing mainly on the formal features of the language at the expense of encouraging students to use the language. This sort of an approach, perhaps, has its germ in the belief that the purpose of all teaching is to simplify learning and one way of doing that is to break down the contents into smaller parts and then present them in a sequential and graded manner.

However, research has shown that learners do not learn one thing perfectly one at a time, but learn numerous things simultaneously (and imperfectly). Hence traditional language teaching has been found to be defective on at least two counts: first, for treating language learning as a system of accumulating structural entities, and second, for neglecting language use. This inconsistency between the goal of second language teaching on the one hand, and the views regarding second language learning and the instructional actions of the teachers teaching the second language on the other, has led to a great dissatisfaction in the pedagogical circles because the methodologies adopted have not been able to yield the hoped-for results. This dissatisfaction, perhaps, was at the root of the reaction against grammar teaching, and this was occasioned also by the rise of CLT? the ‘strong’ version of which shunned grammar teaching altogether, believing that grammar would somehow take care of itself when the learners engaged themselves in communicative activities. This non-interventionist position with regard to grammar teaching was also given weight by a belief that what is ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ for second language acquisition is comprehensible input in the target language, thereby implying that grammar instruction is not required.

However, numerous studies have proved it beyond doubt now that grammar-focused teaching is indeed required for increasing the proficiency of second and foreign language learners. For instance, a study conducted by Lightbown (cited in Devaki Reddy, 2006) points to the significance of grammar-focused instruction. Lightbown conducted an experiment with two groups of English as a Second Language (ESL) learners ¾ one group received comprehensible input through listening and reading without any teacher intervention, and the other group had the guidance of a teacher and were also given ample opportunities for language production. It was found that the group which had the guidance of a teacher, who made the students aware of the various grammatical structures in meaningful contexts, performed better than the other group. This study and many other similar ones resolve one of the great dilemmas of language pedagogy: whether or not grammar teaching is required. Surely grammar-focused instruction is a necessity, but does it mean that one is justified in using the traditional grammatically structured syllabuses (which are still ubiquitous in many parts of India!)? The answer is a loud ‘No’ because these kinds of syllabus and the teaching which accompanies them do not produce communicative competence. These are good enough only for presenting explicit rules and paradigms, providing as they do little or no scope for language learning activities in which communication among learners can occur. So between the two extremes ¾ traditional grammar teaching in which grammar rules are presented as models to learners in a linear fashion on the one hand, and the ‘strong’ version of CLT which neglects grammar teaching altogether on the other¾is there a middle-ground position possible, a position where learners could be involved in communicative tasks with a focus on meaning while at the same time there would be an ample opportunity to focus on form as well? One interesting option is the flexible model for task-based learning, proposed by Jane Willis (1998), which consists of a ‘pre-task’ phase, a ‘task-cycle’ phase and a ‘language focus’ phase. In this model, tasks are, of course, the central component but grammar is not forgotten altogether as in the last phase there are both analysis of the language used and practice of new structures. In the first phase, the ‘pre-task’ phase, the teacher or rather the ‘facilitator’ introduces the topic to the learners and gives instructions for the task that the learners have to perform.  In the next phase, the ‘task-cycle’ phase the learners begin by carrying out the communicative task with the liberty to use any language structure they want. This allows them the freedom to focus on the meaning of their message thereby making it akin to real-life communication. In the final phase, the ‘language focus’ phase, the teacher initiates an analysis of the language used in which the learners should be encouraged to participate actively as well. However, much of the technical grammatical jargon associated with traditional grammar teaching may best be avoided while at the same time, learners should be made aware of which structures are ungrammatical or inappropriate by providing them with grammatical or appropriate counterparts.

In the ultimate analysis, it could be said that this model of grammar teaching is an attractive one as it liberates people from the drudgery of traditional ‘transmission’ approach to grammar teaching and learning in which the learners, rather passively, acquire knowledge from the teacher? Moreover, it’s great fun to do and, therefore, motivating as well.

References:

Devaki Reddy, S. “To Teach or not to Teach Grammar.” Contemporary Themes and Issues in Language Pedagogy. Ed. V. Narang.   New Delhi: Books Plus, 2006.

Rivers, W. M. Communicating Naturally in a Second Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Willis, J. 1998. “Task-Based Learning: What Kind of Adventure?” The Languag Teacher.12October2007.‹http://www.jaltpublications.org/tlt/files/98/jul/willis.html.

About Author:

Anindya Syam Choudhury has an MA in English and a PGCTE and a PGDTE from EFL University, Hyderabad. He has also completed the Trinity College Certificate in TESOL at London recently. Presently, he is with the Department of English, Assam University, Silchar, as an Assistant Professor. His areas of interest include Grammar Pedagogy, Task-based Language Teaching and Learner Autonomy.