a historical overview of grammar in elt - tcc...

RAQUEL WEBER VALERIO

A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF GRAMMAR IN ELT

Monography supervised by MarrigjeKool Verburg for the English LanguageGraduate course of the UniversidadeTuiuti do Parana to obtain the title ofEnglish Specialist.

Curitiba, abril de 2002

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION ....

1. HISTORY OF GRAMMAR ..

2. GRAMMAR ..

2.1. GRAMMATICAL ELEMENTS ..

2.2. DOES GRAMMAR RULE?.

2.3. FORMAL GRAMMAR ..

24. FIRST WORDS .

2.5. GREEK GRAMMAR ..

2.6. THE ROMAN PERIOD AND THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD ...

2.7. THE RENAISSANCE AND AFTER ...

2.8. WIDER INFLUENCE OF THE GREGO-ROMAN TRADITION

2.9. THE INDIAN TRADITION ..

3. GRAMMAR IN VARIOUS METHODS AND APPROACHES ...

3.1. TRANSLATION APPROACH ..

3.2. THE DIRECT METHOD ...

3.3. AUDIOLINGUAL METHODOLOGY ...

34. COGNITIVE APPROACH ..

3.5. THE MULTIPLE APPROACH ..

3.6. TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE. ..

3.7. THE NATURAL APPROACH ...

3.8. TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGES - THE SILENT WAY ...

3.9. SUGGESTOPEDIA. ..

3.10. HUMANISTIC APPROACH ..

2

4

4

4

5

6

8

9

10

10

10

12

12

14

17

19

21

22

24

27

29

33

3.11. BASED APPROACH.... .

3.12. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH .... ... ...

34

34

353.13. THE TASK- BASED LEARNING FRAMEWORK .

CONCLUSION .. 37

BIBLIOGRAPHY .. 39

iiI

INTRODUCTION

This study intends to look at the history of grammar and how it has

developed over the years.

Much has been written on methods and approaches and this paper

focuses on how grammar was dealt with in each of them.

Grammar has had some classifications, which will be analyzed in general

terms.

Besides the classifications and dimensions this paper also shows the

changes in each period and also some of the most important methods and

approaches.

The time has come to look at theories of grammar method or approach,

realizing that the most current theory may still not be the final word, and that more

study and research are required for better understanding of grammar and its position

in English Language Teaching

1. THE HISTORY OF GRAMMAR

We cannot place transformational grammar in relation to earlier forms of

grammar. These forms can be divided into three main classes: (1) traditional, (2)

comparative and historical, and (3) structural and descriptive.

English traditional grammar has its roots in the Greek grammar of OionysiusThrax (c.200 b.C.) and in the Latin grammars of Donatus (cAOOAO) and Priscian(c.600AO). The methodology of these classical grammarians was adopted bygrammarians of eighteenth century England, most notably Joseph Priestly,Robert Lowth, George Campbell, and Lindley Murray. The grammars of thesemen are all based on the assumption that ~thestructure of various languages,and especially of Latin, embodies universally valid canons of logic~.(BLOOMFIELD,1933)

The grammarians of eighteenth century England sought to discover

logical rules of syntax and usage. They generally assumed that Latin was the most

logical language, and they consequently based their rules for English on Latin

models. These rules were almost invariably prescriptive; that is, they dictated

precisely the usage to be followed by all speakers and writers. The early English

grammarians either overlooked the fact that all languages change, or else

considered such change as a corruption. Yet for all their appeals to "classical logic"

in language, they also displayed a heavy reliance on "intuition" in discovering the

rules. In other words, not only did they base their rules for English partly on the rules

for Latin, but partly also on their intuition about what was correct in their own

language. Consequently, we must recognize that many of their "rules" are actually

explanations of intuition.

Before looking at these linguistic facts, we should note that modern

"school grammars", such as those most widely used in elementary and secondary

schools today, are based almost exclusively on the models of the eighteenth century

English grammarians. They are largely prescriptive, and their explanations of such

things as agreement and passive voice are based upon an intuitive perception of the

structure of English. They ignore many linguistic facts, and most importantly and

unfortunately, they rarely give any indication for the theoretical basis of grammatical

rules.

The historical and comparative grammarians were so preoccupied with

their research that they failed to look closely at the language around them. It was not

until the 19th century that linguists made serious attempts to describe precisely the

form of modern English. And it was not until the early part of the 20th century that

linguists developed increasingly precise tools of description. The late 10th and early

20th centuries saw some major compilations of linguist data relating to Modern

English. Many of these compilations were the work of non English Scholars, perhaps

the most notable of whom is the Dane, Otto Jespersen. Jespersen and other

grammarians also attempted to classify their data into syntactically significant

categories, but they rarely attempted to describe the data in any very precise and

logically acceptable way. They were so preoccupied with collecting and cataloguing

data that they apparently had neither the time nor the inclination to make a logical

analysis of the data.

The most notable of the early descriptivists were Leonard Bloomfield and

Edward Sapir. They sought to describe present day English not as people think it

Wshouldbe" but as it actually is. We must note that they were not primarily concerned

with operations in language; they were not attempting to explain intuition. They and

their followers were looking for methods of describing language that were free of

human error and subjective judgements. (THOMAS, 1979)

2. GRAMMAR

2.1. GRAMMATICAL ELEMENTS

Grammar has been studied from the early days of literate civilization in

several centers, both from the point of view of individual languages and from that of

general theory. It is perhaps the concentration of attention on its aims and on the

best melhods of achieving them that has been Ihe chief contribution of linguistic

science in the contemporary world of "grammar".

Grammar is concerned with the structure of stretches of utterance or stretchesof writing, and with the grouping and classification of recurrent elements ofutterances by virtue of the functional places they occupy and the relations theycontract with one another in the structures. It may be approached from the pointof view of the grammatical analysis of the actual utterances of a language, orfrom that of the generation of production of utterances by grammatical rulesframed for that purpose. (ROBINS, 1964)

2.2. DOES GRAMMAR RULE?

As language teachers, we routinely construct materials and teach lessons

based on some combination of grammar and words.

By words we usually mean single lexical items as commonly presented in

dictionaries, together with typical combinations of words (including phrases such as

'operating theatre' or 'casual conversation').

Grammar is usually divided in syntax and morphology. Synlax is the rule-

based system, which we use for combining words in sentences (including such

familiar pallerns as 'subject - verb - object'). Morphology comprises the systematic

modification of words through alteration and addition, for example 'played', 'plays'

and 'playing' are all morphological variations of the word 'play' that express

grammatical meaning.

Taken together, words and grammar combine to provide the essential

ingredients of language. In fact, the two go together so obviously that it is hard to

stand back and examine the relationship between them. But this is a relationship,

which is well worth enquiring into.

Grammar centre stage?

Typically, language teaching materials - workbooks, course books,

classroom grammars - put grammar centre stage, and use words chiefly as a means

of illustrating grammatical patterns both syntactically and morphological. By

grammar is primary, and words are quite subservient. For instance, it is quite

common for teachers to use a very controlled 'presentation stage' to introduce key

grammatical forms, and only later allow students to modify the grammatical options

by varying the words used to signal them.

This is one way of formulating a relationship between grammar and

words, a relationship where the two are quite distinct, and where grammar is very

much the central factor. This is the traditional formula, and it is so integral to

language teaching that (for the most part) it passes unnoticed and unquestioned.

(BATSTONE, 1996)

2.3. FORMAL GRAMMAR

Reflection on the relative simplicity of the basis of grammar (complexity, ofwhich there is no lack, comes with its elaboration in the full grammatical analysisof languages and the theoretical apparatus required for this) should clarify theneed for purely formal methods in grammatical method. This need has onlybeen clearly and explicitly realized in fairly recent times, and it has beenaccompanied by the development of an adequate terminological apparatus tocarry it through. Formal grammar is grammar that both in theory and in methodis concerned solely with the observable forms, structural functions, andinterrelations of the components of sentences or stretches of utterances.(ROBINS, 1964)

2.4. FIRST WORDS

It would be absurd to suggest that in normal social life languages are

learned according to the principle of 'grammar first, words later'. On the contrary,

children learning their first language start out with words. Indeed, they are very

adept at putting words together to make meaning: 'mummy food', 'big car road' and

so on. It is only later that grammar emerges, and when it does emerge, it makes its

entrance gradually and over a period of time. For example, the past tense might

appear first through the use of a few irregular forms, with the regular form only

emerging later.

Similarly, both first and second language learners have been observed

using 'chunks' of language, phrases like how are you? or is it possible for you to ... ?

W'hich are used at first without any variation, just as if they were single words. After

some time, these word-like chunks are broken down as the learner comes to see that

they contain useful components, which can be combined in different ways according

to grammatical rules.

In short, language learning very often follows a 'word first, grammar later'

pattern, with the grammar appearing to grow out of a basis of words. This pattern is

virtually the reverse of the formulation, which we associate with some approaches to

language in teaching materials.

Communicating without grammar

So, in reality, it is words (and not grammar), which are primary. But this

doesn't mean that we can simply invert the traditional formula. Words are primary in

the sense that they typically come first in the learning process, but they are not

primary in the sense of being more important or fundamental than grammar.

Like the novice language learner, we are all capable to communicating

quite effectively by relying solely on words, even single words. Various scenarios

come to mind: the transport official ('Tickets!'), the casual offer in a bar ('Coffee?'),

not to mention countless road signs and other instances of language used to

regulate or conlrol.

But the key here is 'familiar" these are all scenarios, which rely for their

effectiveness on a mutually understood context. I know that you are offering me

coffee because I know the routine, and you know thai I know! In contexts where

there is a good deal of shared understanding, we can communicate without grammar

and wilh words alone.

But then, of course, there are all those other contexts of human interaction

where the situation is not so familiar, and where (as a result) we will need to be

much more elaborate and precise with our language. If we find ourselves explaining

a joke to someone from another culture, for instance, we will necessarily be

deploying a very rich and intricate blend of grammar and words. In such cases, the

two are necessarily interdependent, and we cannot say that either plays a dominanl

role.

The mechanical and the organic

We have, then two very different conceptions of the relationship between

grammar and words. The first, associated with a certain tradition in language

teaching, gives primacy to grammar and uses words to illustrate grammatical

patterns. This is a very mechanical perspective, and it has for many years been used

to give a sense of rigor and systematicity to classroom exercises. The second,

associated with language learning and everyday contexts of language use,

maintains that grammar and words are crucially interdependent, whilst recognizing

that words can precede grammar and (on occasion) be used quite adequately

without grammar. This second conception connects much more with the 'real world'

of language use, and as such it is a more organic perspective.

These days, of course, language teaching is being thought of much more

in terms of something organic, as a highly skilful enterprise v.there (amongst other

So how can teachers exploit the kind of principles discussed in this

article? One recent proposal involves providing students with a series of carefully

chosen words, and constructing activities, which require them to combine and

'grammaticise', the words in order to make theif meaning clear. This kind of activity

is interesting because it follows the direction, which characterized the learning

process: words first, grammar later.

More generally, there is a real preoccupation in current research with the

need to motivate students to 'stretch' their language and not to sit back and

construct familiar contexts in which they can rely rather too much on words and not

enough on grammatical elaboration (as with 'Coffee?' and 'Tickets I').

One way of encouraging this is to use what are called 'diverging' tasks.

These are activities, which callan the student to use a lot of grammatical elaboration

in order to express meanings and viewpoints, which cut across (or 'diverge' from)

those expressed by others in the group. The classic example of a diverging activity

would be a debate.

Nobody can say how exactly our perception of language in language

teaching will have changed by the 21" century. One thing, though, seems certain:

the traditional and very mechanical separation of grammar and words provides a

very inadequate basis for new modes of teaching, and there may be much to be

gained from considering ways in which they interact organically. (BATSTONE, 1996,

8:9)

2.5. GREEK GRAMMAR

The particular analysis reflected in standard school grammars of Greek

was so far from bringing self-evidence that it took some six centuries to be

elaborated (from the 4'" century B. C. to the 2"" century A. C.)

Pythagoras, one of the earliest and most influential of the 5th century

sophists, is credited with the three genders in Greek. It is Plato who, as far as we

know, first explicitly distinguished between nouns and verbs. It may be noted,

however, that the two classes of words defined by Plato as "nouns" and "verbs" were

not co-extensive with the classes to which our school grammars are based. As

defined by Plato, "nouns" were terms that could function in sentences as the subjects

of a predication and "verbs" were terms, which could express the action or quality

predicated.

It was in Alexandria that what we now call the "traditional" grammar of

Greek was more or less definitively codified.

The grammar of Dionysius Thrax (late second century B.C.) was, to the best ofour knowledge, the first comprehensive and systematic grammatical descriptionto be published in the western world. In addition to four stoic parts of speechDionysius recognized also the adverb, the participle, the pronoun, and thepreposition. All Greek words were classified in terms of case, gender, number,tense, voice, mood and so on. This part of the grammatical description of Greekwas carried out some three centuries later, less systematically, however, byApollonius Dyscollus (second century A.D.). (OMAGGIO, 1986)

2.6. THE ROMAN PERIOD AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD

The Roman grammarians followed their Greek models not only in their generalassumptions about language, but also in points of detail. A typical Latingrammar was organized, as was the grammar of Dionysius Thrax, in threesections. The first section would define the scope of grammar as the art ofcorrect speech and of the understanding of the poets, and would treat the "partsof speech" and give, in greater or less detail, the variations they underwentaccording to tense, gender, number, case, etc. Finally there would be adiscussion of good and bad style, warnings against common "faults" and"barbarisms", and examples of the recommended "figures of speechn.(OMAGGIO,1986)

The thirteenth century saw a flowering of scholarship in all its branches: it wasthe period of the great scholastics, who, under the influence of the newly-accessible works of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, set out to reduce allsciences, including grammar, to a set of propositions whose truth could bedemonstrated conclusively by deduction from first principles. It was therefore thequestion of meaning, or Usignificationn, to which they attacked the greatestimportance. Indeed, so many works were produced with the title, "The Modes ofSignifying" (De modis signiffcandt). (OMAGGIO, 1986)

Grammar was therefore a philosophical theory of the parts of speech and

their characteristic "models of signifying"

10

2.7. THE RENAISSANCE AND AFTER

Once again grammar became an aid to the understanding of literature and

to the writing of "good" Latin. Erasmus himself (1513) published a Latin syntax based

on Donatus. Greek also became the object of intense study, and, somewhat later,

Hebrew. Thus it was the humanists who handed on to succeeding generations of

scholars the languages and literature of three cultures.

With the Renaissance, the vernacular languages developed enormously, andgrammars were written in great numbers. In fact, the whole classical conceptionwas extended to the modern languages of Europe. Language still meant thelanguage of literature; and literature, when it became the object of academicstudy in our schools and universities, continued to mean the work of the ~bestauthors" writing in the accepted genres - Dante in that of the Virgilian epic,Milton in a more Homeric strain and so on. Yet the study of grammar in thelanguage departments of our schools and universities still tends to be classicalin spirit. (LYONS, 1964)

2.8. WIDER INFLUENCE OF THE GREGO-ROMAN TRADITION

The grammar of Dionysius Thrax was translated into Armenian in the fifthcentury A.D., and somewhat later into Syrian. Subsequently, the Arabgrammarians drew upon the Syrians, and they also came more directly intocontact with Greco-Roman tradition in Spain. The Hebrew grammarians wereinfluenced by the Arabs. So it was that the native grammatical descriptions ofArmenian, Syrian, Arabic and Hebrew were already strongly influenced by theGreco-Roman tradition even before these languages attracted the attention ofEuropean scholars at the Renaissance. (LYONS, 1964)

2.9. THE INDIAN TRADITION

There are two respects in which Indian linguistic work may be held to be

superior to Western traditional grammar: first in phonetics, and second in the study

of the internal structure of words. Indian grammatical studies seem to have had their

origin in the necessity of preserving intact, not only the text, but also the

11

pronunciation of the Vedic hymns, the precise and accurate recitation of which is

held to be essential to their efficacy in Hindu ritual.

The Indian classification of speech sounds was more detailed, more

accurate and more soundly based upon observation and experiment than anything

achieved in Europe (or elsewhere as far as we know) before the late nineteenth

century, when the science of phonetics in Europe was in fact strongly influenced by

the discovery and translations of the Indian linguistic treatises by Western scholars.

In their analysis of words the Indian grammarians went well beyond what

might be thought necessary for the original purpose of preserving the languages of

the sacred texts. Panini's grammar is not in fact specifically devoted to the language

of the Vedic hymns, but to the language of his own day. (KRESS, 1976)

3. GRAMMAR IN VARIOUS METHODS AND APPROACHES

3.1. TRANSLATION APPROACH

The grammar translation approach in language teaching was congruent

with the view of faculty psychologists that mental discipline was essential for

strengthening the powers of the mind. Originally used to teach Latin and Greek. this

method was applied to the teaching of modern languages in the late nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries. Its primary purpose was to enable students to wexplore the

depths of great literature", while helping them understand their native language

better through extensive analysis of the grammar of the target language and

translation.

Major characteristics of its grammar:

- Grammar was learned by means of long and elaborate explanations.

- Students had to learn the language so that they could translate the

passages well.

- Much of its class time was devoted to talking about the language.

(MURCIA. 1991)

While there is some variation, grammar-translation usually consists of the

following activities:

1. Explanation of a grammar rule, with example sentences.

2. Vocabulary, presented in the form of a bilingual list.

3. A reading selection, emphasizing the rule presented in items 1 and 2.

4. Exercises designed to provide practice in grammar and vocabulary of

the lesson. These exercises emphasize the conscious control of structure ("focus

13

on", in the sense of Krashen and Set inger, 1975) and include Iranslalion in bolh

directions, from L1 to L2 and L2 to L 1.

Most grammar-translation classes are designed for foreign language

instruction and are taught in the students' first language.

a) Requirements for optimal input

(i) Comprehensible. II can only be claimed that grammar-translation

provides scraps of comprehensible input. The model sentences are usually

understandable, but the focus is entirely on form, and not meaning. The reading

selection is the primary source, but the selections provided are nearly always much

too difficult, often requiring what Newmark (1966) calls "crytoanalytic decoding"

Students are forced to read word by word, and consequently rarely focus completely

on the message. The sentences used in the exercises may be comprehensible, but

here again, as in the model sentences, they are designed to focus on form.

(ii) Interesting / relevant. There is usually an attempt, especially in recent

years, to provide topics of interest in the reading selection. They clearly do not seize

the students' attention to such an extent that they forget that it is written in another

language - reports of a trip to France, even if it includes the Louvre, generally it

does not provide the information that most high school and college students in the

United States are eager to obtain.

(iii) Grammatically sequenced. Grammar-translation is, of course,

grammatically sequenced, the majority of the texts attempting to proceed from what

the author considers easy rules to more complex rules. Each lesson introduces

certain rules, and these rules dominate the lesson.

(iv) Quantity. As discussed above, grammar-translation fails to provide a

great deal of comprehensible input. The small amounl of comprehensible inpul in the

model sentences, the readings, and exercises is, moreover, rarely supplemented by

teacher talk in the target language.

(v) Affective level. Grammar-translation violates nearly every component,

and it is therefore predicted that this method will have the effect of putting the

student "on the defensive". Students are expected to be able to produce

immediately, and are expected to be fully accurate (although in writing~ (~<v'f. ?-t;.

~ BiOliOTECA ~S"r.l'l A"I~nlo:lJ~JI: SI.11)\

" Co

14

usually in speaking). Anxiety level, it has been pointed out, is also raised for some

students who are less inclined toward grammar study (under-users).

(vi) Tools for conversational management. Grammar-translation makes no

attempt, explicitly or implicitly, to help students manage conversations with native

speakers.

b) Learning

Grammar-translation implicitly assumes that conscious control of grammar

is necessary for mastery. In other words, learning needs to precede acquisition. This

assumption needs that all target structures be introduced and explained. There is,

therefore, no limitation of the set of rules to be learned to those that are learnable,

portable, and not yet acquired. There is no attempt to account for individual variation

in Monitor use, nor is there any attempt to specify when rules are to be used, the

implicit assumption being that all students will be able to use all the rules all the

time! (KRASHEN, 1982)

3.2. THE DIRECT METHOD

The direct method originated in the nineteenth century. Advocates of this

"active" method believed that students learn to understand a language by listening to

it in large quantities. They learn to speak by speaking.

Statements and questions were illustrated with actions, and students

repeated both the language model and the action. For example, a sequence might

be, 'I'm getting up. I'm going to the blackboard. I'm writing my name.' The statements

were followed by related questions such as, 'where are you going?' and later still by

questions to class members such as, 'where is he going? I where did he go?'

(BRUMFIT, 1983)

Major Characteristics of its grammar"

- Grammar rules are not explicitly taught; rather, they are assumed to be

learned through practice. Students are encouraged to form their own generalizations

15

about grammar through inductive methods. When grammar is taught, it is taught in

the target language. (MURCIA, 1981)

The term "direct method" has been used to refer to many different

approaches to second language teaching. I will use it here to refer specifically to de

Sauz"'s method and its present day versions, namely Pucciani and Hamel's method

for French, and similar versions for Spanish developed by Barcia.

The characteristics of the direct method are the following, as I understand

it. First, a discussion, all classroom language is in the target language. This includes

the language of the exercises and teacher talk used for classroom management. The

method focuses on inductive teaching of grammar. The goal of the instruction is for

the students to guess, or work out the rules of the language. To aid in induction, the

teacher asks questions that are hopefully interesting and meaningful, and the

students' response is then used to provide an example of the target structure. If this

is well done, it can give a direct method session the mood of a conversation class.

An example from an earlier paper (Krashen, 1980), one that a teacher used in adirect method French class. The goal of this exercise was to teach theconjunction ~bienque", and the fact that its presence requires the following verbto be subjunctive:

"Teacher: Fait-il beau aujour'dhui?Student: Non, il ne fait pas beau aujourd'hui.Teacher: Irez-vous cependent ala pi age pendant Ie week-end?Student: Qui, j'irai cependent a la plage pendant Ie week-end.Teacher: Irez-vous a la plage bien qu'il ne fasse pas beau?Student: Qui, j'irai a la pi age bien qu'il ne ... "

The teacher used this particular example on a determined beach-goer,

and generally tried to tailor questions to students' interests.

The direct method insists on accuracy and errors are corrected in class,

After several exchanges of the sort given above, when the teacher considers that

enough examples have been given, the rule is discussed and explained in the target

language.


(i) Comprehensible. The direct method, with its insistence on the use of

the target language at all times, provides a great deal of comprehensible input. As is

16

the case with the Naturat Approach, the entire period is filled with target tanguage

use with a variety of topicS and structures utilized.

(ii) Interesting / relevant. As mentioned above, there is an attempt to make

the language used in the classroom of some interest to the students. The goal of the

lesson, however, is grammar teaching, and as discussed earlier, this puts heavy

constraints on what can be discussed. Discussion is always meaningful, but is rarely

genuinely communicative. According to Pucciani and Hamel's manual, sentences

such as:

"Est-ce que votre pantaloon est vieux ou neuf? (198)Mangez-vous des carottes? (236)Qui prepare Ie diner dans votre famille? (237)Est-ce que vous vous rasez tous les matins? (297)"

are recommended to help the student induce various pOints of grammar. As with

other methods that rely on contextualization (see e.g. discussion of the Silent Way),

the requirement that all discussion embeds a grammar point makes this requirement

hard to meet.

(iii) Grammatically sequenced. The direct method is strictly sequenced,

which distorts efforts at real communication.

(iv) Quantity. As mentioned above, the direct method meets this

requirement as well as any classroom method can, filling the entire hour with

comprehensible input.

(v) Affective filter level. The insistence on grammatical accuracy at very

early stages, the use of error correction, and the grammatical focus of the course

may cause anxiety and a high filter for all but the most dedicated Monitor user.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. Students are given the tools for

interaction in the classroom in the target language - they are soon able to initiate

discussionwith the teacher and ask questions about grammar. Some of this

conversational, or better, "classroom competencen will be useful on the outside, but

some will not. There is no explicit goal of providing tools for conversation with a

more competent native speaker.

17

b) Learning

uThe direct method presumes that conscious control is necessary for

acquisition, that conscious knowledge of grammar can be accessed at all times, and

by all students. It demands full control of late-acquired structures in oral production

from the very beginning (e.g. gender), and may thus encourage over-use of the

grammar." (KRASHEN, 1982)

3.3. AUDIOLINGUAL METHODOLOGY

In psychology, the behaviorist and neo behaviorist schools were

extremely influential in the 1940s and 1950s. At the same time, the structural, or

descriptive, school of linguistics dominated thinking in that field. Up until this time,

the emphasis had been on historical linguistics, which sought to explain linguistic

data through the examination of manuscripts and documentation of changes in

vocabulary and form over time. But as linguists began to concentrate on the study of

Indian languages, many of which had no writing systems, the oral form of the

language became the only data source. From these field studies of Indian languages

evolved the school of structural, or descriptive, linguistics.

Major characteristics of grammar:

- Pattern drills are to be taught initially without explanation. Practice

should precede any explanation given, and the discussion of grammar should be

kept very brief (MURCIA, 1983)

Here are the common features of audio-lingual language teaching. Again,

there may be substantial variation in practice. The lesson typically begins with a

dialogue, which contains the structures and vocabulary of the lesson. The student is

expected to mimic the dialogue and eventually memorize it (termed "mim-mem").

Often, the class practices the dialogue as a group, and then in smaller groups. The

dialogue is followed by a pattern drill on the structures introduced in the dialogue.

The aim of the drill is to "strengthen habits", to make the pattern "automatic".

Lado (1964) notes that audio-lingual pattern drills focus the students'

attention away from the new structure.

18

But in reality, according to audio-lingual theory, the student is making the

pattern automatic.

There are four basic drill types: simple repetition, substitution (as in the

example above), transformation (e.g. changing an affirmative sentence into a

negative sentence), and translation.

Following pattern drills, some audio-lingual classes provide explanation.

According to proponents of audio-lingual ism, the explanation is a description of what

was practiced, not a prescription of what to say. The "rules" presented are therefore

not to be considered instructions on how to perform. The explanation section is

considered optional, since, in our terms, it is "language appreciation"


(i) Comprehensible. It can be maintained that audio-lingual methodology

does provide comprehensible input. The dialogues and pattern practice are certainly

understandable by most students, although some theorists have said that in early

parts of a lesson actual comprehension is not necessary, that purely a mechanical

drill is useful.

(ii) Interesting / relevant. While Lado (1964) advises that the dialogues

contain "useful" language, that it be age-appropriate and natural, most dialogues fall

far short of the mark of true interest and relevance. Most pattern practice, of course,

makes no attempt to meet this requirement.

(iii) There is a clear sequence in audio-lingual teaching, based usually on

linguistic simplicity, but also influenced by frequency and predictions of difficulty by

contrastive analysis. As is the case with grammar-translation, the entire lesson is

dominated by the "structure of the day"

(iv) Quantity. While audio-lingual teaching is capable of filling an entire

class hour with aural-oral language, it is quite possible to argue that audio-lingualism

does not meet this requirement as well as other methods. While the presentation of

a dialogue, for example, may take up a full period, students spend very little of this

time focusing on the message, \o\Ihich is presented over and over. The goal is the

memorization of the dialogue, not the comprehension of a message. Pattern practice

may also be comprehensible in theory, but students probably do not attend to

19

meaning after the first few repetitions. Indeed, according to some practitioners, the

idea behind pattern practice is to avoid meaning altogether. For both dialogues and

pattern practice, the entire hour might be spent with just a few sentences or patterns,

as compared to the wide variety real communication gives.

(v) Affective Mer level. Audio-lingual teaching violates several aspects of

the Input Hypothesis: production is expected immediately, and is expected to be

error-free. Over-use of drill and repetition, procedures such as not allowing,

student's access to the written word in early stages may also add to anxiety.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. Audio-lingualism does a

slightly better job in this category than does grammar-translation, as the dialogues

do contain material that can be used to invite input and to control its quality. The

applicability of dialogues to free conversation and to genuine conversational

management may be limited, however. Most dialogues are actually scripts, and are

not designed to be used to negotiate meaning.

b) Learning

Theoretically, conscious learning is not an explicit goal of audiowlingualism. Thegoal, rather, is to have the student over~learn a variety of patterns to be useddirectly in performance. In practice, however, audio-lingual teaching often resultsin inductive learning, the student attempting to work out a conscious rule on thebasis of the dialogue and pattern practice, with the explanation section servingto confirm or disconfinn his guess. There is thus no explicit attempt to restrictlearning to rules that are learnable, portable and not yet acquired, nor is thereany attempt to encourage rule use only in certain situations. (KRASHEN, 1982)

3.4. COGNITIVE APPROACHES

It was in the 1960s that a revolution in the field of linguistics took place. In

1957, Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he explained and defended

generative transformational grammar, a theory of linguistics that focused on syntax

rather than on language as sound and meaning.

Major characteristics of grammar:

- In teaching the language, the instructor must move from the known to

the unknown. That is, the students' present knowledge base must be determined so

that the necessary prerequisites for understanding the new material can be

20

provided. "Students must be familiar with the rules of the new language before being

asked to apply them to the generation of language. Therefore, grammar should be

overtly explained and discussed in a cognitive classroom." (CHOMSKY, 1957)

The cognitive-code bears some similarity to grammar-translation, but also

differs in some ways. While the goal of grammar-translation is basically to help

students read literature in the target language, the cognitive code attempts to help

the student in all four skills, speaking and listening in addition to reading and writing.

The assumptions are similar, however, insofar as cognitive code posits that

Ucompetence precedes performance", In this case, "competence" is not the tacit

knowledge of the native speaker, as originally defined by Chomsky (1965), but is

conscious knowledge. Cognitive code assumes, that ~oncethe student has a proper

degree of cognitive control over the structures of a language, facility will develop

automatically with the use of language in meaningful situations." (Carroll, 1966). In

other words, learning becomes acquisition.

As in grammar-translation, the lesson begins with an explanation of the

rule, and this is often done, in foreign language situations, in the students' first

language. Exercises follow, and these are meant to help the student practice the rule

consciously. In other words, monitor use is actively promoted. Exercises are followed

by activities labeled "communicative competence". This term has been used in the

literature in several ways; in cognitive-code literature it appears to be synonymous

with "fluency"


(i) Comprehensible. The explanation and exercise section, as is the case

with grammar-translation, will provide very little comprehensible input, as the focus,

at all times is on form and not meaning. The "communicative competence" section of

cognitive-code promises to provide greater amounts of comprehensible input, but

this potential is diminished if activities are limited by the desire to contextualize the

"rule of the day" This practice limits the structures used, limits can be discussed,

and disturbs the naturalness of the communication.

(ii) Interesting / relevant. This depends, of course, on the activities chosen

for the communicative competence section. Regardless of vvtiat is chosen, however,

21

the goal remains the learning of a specific structure, and because of this it is nearly

impossible to satisfy the Principle.

(iii) The cognitive-code, like grammar-translation, is sequenced, and the

structure of the day dominates all parts of the lesson.

(iv) Quantity. Thanks to the communicative competence section, there is

greater quantity of comprehensible input in the cognitive-code, as compared to

grammar-translation. It does not, however, live up to the ideal of a class full of

comprehensible input with total focus on the message, since the communicative

competence section is only a part of the program and even here, the focus is on

form.

(v) Affective filter level. Error correction on all output is part of most

cognitive-code classrooms, students are expected to produce right away, and it is

expected that this production will be accurate. This predicts a high filter for many

students.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. There is no announced attempt

to provide this, but it is quite possible that some activities in the communicative

competence section will provide some of these tools.

b) Learning

As is the case with grammar-translation, the assumption of cognitive-code

is that conscious learning can be accomplished by everyone, that all rules are

learnable, and that conscious knowledge should be available at all times. We can

only conclude that cognitive-code encourages over-use of the monitor, unless all

rules "fade away" as soon as the structures become automatic.

3.5. THE MULTIPLE APPROACH

Although it is fundamentally a form of the direct method used in the 19th

and 20th centuries, de Sauze's approach does not assume that the adult learns a

language in the exact same manner as does a child.

22

Major characteristics:

- Both grammar and vocabulary should be sequenced and carefully

programmed to build on previous knowledge.

- Grammar is taught inductively in the target language, with examples

first and then an explanation of the rules. However, it should not dominate the

language class and should be avoided if it is confusing. (ASHER, 1974)

3.6. TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE

The method, developed by James J. Asher, utilizes oral commands that

students carry out to show their understanding. As with the direct method, the target

language is the exclusive language of instruction.


- Understanding and retention is best achieved through movement of

students' bodies in response to commands. Asher states that his research indicates

that most of the grammatical structures of the target language and hundreds of

vocabulary items can be learned through the skillful use of the imperative by the

instructor (ASHER, 1974)

This unique method was developed by James Asher, and is described in

many of his journal papers and his book (Asher, 1977a). Total Physical Response,

or TPR, consists basically of obeying commands given by the instructor that involve

an overt physical response. The instructor, for example, says "stand up" and the

class stands up. The commands become more complex as the class progresses, and

Asher claims that it is quite possible to embed vast amounts of syntax into the form

of a command. Students speak only when they are "ready", which usually occurs at

around 10 hours of instruction, and consists of student commands. In the typical

TPR class (as described by Asher, Kusudo, and de la Torre, 1974), the first few

months (45 hours in this case) would consist of 70% listening comprehension

(obeying commands), 20% speaking, and 10% reading and writing. Asher (1977b)

lists the three principles of the TPR system:

23

(i) Delay speech from students until understanding of spoken language

"has been extensively internalized" (p.1 041).

(ii) "Achieve understanding of spoken language through utterances by the

instructor is the imperative" (p.1041).

(iii) "Expect that, at some point in the understanding of spoken language,

students will indicate a 'readiness' to talk" (p.1 041).


(i) Comprehensible. TPR meets this requirement. The total physical

response required of the student is, in effect, a manifestation of his comprehension

of the teacher's utterance. It can, in fact, be argued that a TPR is not necessary for

comprehension or for progress in second language acquisition, but merely shows

that the input has been understood. Asher's own research supports the view that the

use of the TPR is not essential. A series of studies using children (Asher, 1966;

Asher and Price, 1967) and adults (Kunihira and Asher, 1965; Asher, 1965, 1969)

shows that students who merely observe a TPR do as well as those who perform

TPR's on tests that demand a TPR. Both groups, those who observed TPR's and

those who performed them, outperformed students who wrote their answers on tests.

This suggests that Asher's second principle may not be necessary, but may be

simply an effective device to focus students on the input and to keep them actively

involved.

(ii) Interestingire/evant. The novelty and freshness of the TPR technique

probably does a great deal to make the class experience interesting. It may be

difficult to remain interesting if one holds to the requirement of producing imperatives

100% of the time, however (Asher nowhere recommends this),

(iii) Not grammatically sequenced. According to Asher's description, each

lesson does have a grammatical focus in TPR. In other words, commands

contextualize various points of grammar. As discussed earlier, this can hinder efforts

to meet requirement 2 above. There is nothing inherent in the TPR approach that

demands a grammatical focus, however.

(iv) Quantity. TPR can fill an entire class period with comprehensible input

in the form of commands. It thus has the potential of meeting this requirement fully.

24

(v) Affective filter level. TPR makes one very important contribution to

lowering student anxiety: students are not asked to produce in the second language

until they themselves decide they are ready. They are, in other words, allowed a

'silent period'. Asher does not state explicitly whether error correction on early

student output is required in TPR; this may vary from teacher to teacher. It has been

painted out, however, that the necessity of producing overt physical responses right

away may provoke anxiety in some students.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. There is no explicit mention of

this in Asher's papers.

b) Learning

The assumption of TPR is that grammar will be learned inductively, that is,

students will work out the correct form of the rule during the class activity. In terms of

the theory presented in this book, this can be interpreted as claiming that much of

the grammar will be acquired and I or inductively learned in the technical sense of

inductive learning. The emphasis on listening comprehension and the delay of

speech will, in itself, prevent much misuse of conscious learning: students will tend

not to monitor their output for form in inappropriate circumstances and they will not

use rules unsuited for monitor use if there is less demand for production.

(KRASHEN, 1982).

3.7. THE NATURAL APPROACH

Terrell's main premise is that "it is possible for students in a classroom to

learn to communicate in a second language." (1977, p.325)


- Distribution of learning and acquisition activities in communication is

more important than form in beginning and intermediate levels of instruction, then

most, if not all, classroom activities should be designed to evoke communication.

Explanation and practice with linguistic forms should be done outside the class for

the most part. Explanations must be clear enough to be understood by students so

2;

that classroom time is not wasted on grammatical lectures or manipulative exercises.

(TERRELL, 1977)

The Natural Approach was developed by Tracy Terrell at the University of

California at Irvine for foreign language instruction at the university and high school

levels. While originally developed independently of "Monitor Theory", its later

development and articulation have been influenced by the second language

acquisition theory presented in this volume. The method can be described by the

following principles:

1. Class time is devoted primarily to providing input for acquisition.

2. The teacher speaks only the target language in the classroom.

Students may use either the first or second language. If they choose to respond in

the second language, their errors are not corrected unless communication is

seriously impaired.

3. Homework may include formal grammar work. Error correction is

employed in correcting homework.

4. The goals of the course are "semantic"; that is activities may involve the

use of a certain structure, but the goals are to enable students to talk about ideas,

perform tasks, and solve problems.


(i) Comprehensible. The entire goal of classroom practice in the Natural

Approach is to provide comprehensible input. Natural Approach teachers utilize

realia, pictures, and students' previous knowledge to make their speech

comprehensible from the first day.

(Ii) Interesting I relevant. This is a serious problem for a foreign language

class. The Natural Approach attempts to capture students' interest by using what

Terrell terms "Affective Acquisition Activities", adapted from Christensen, that

encourage discussion of topics of personal interest to the students (e. g. "Suppose

you are a famous person, and there is a newspaper article about you. Tell at least

one thing about yourself which is mentioned in the article ..."). In the early stages of

the Natural Approach, classroom discussion focuses on personal information, the

26

goal being to establish a group feeling. Later, students discuss their past histories,

and eventually they are able to talk about their hopes and plans for the future.

(iii) Not grammatically sequenced. The focus of the class is not on the

presentation of grammar. There is a tendency for certain structures to be used more

often in certain stages, but there is no deliberate sequencing.

(iv) Quantity Since the entire class period is filled with comprehensible

input, the Natural Approach meets this requirement as well as any foreign language

teaching method can.

(v) Affective filter level. Since the Natural Approach attempts to remain

"true" to the Input Hypothesis, many sources of anxiety are reduced or eliminated.

Students do not have to produce in the second language until they feel they are

ready. Error correction for form is not done in the classroom. Also, an attempt is

made to discuss topics that are interesting to students. This predicts lower filter

strength than most other methods.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. Some tools for conversational

management are provided in the form of very short dialogues, designed to help

students converse with native speakers on predictable and frequent topiCS. Also,

students are introduced, right from the beginning, to phrases and expressions that

will help them control the teacher'S input (e.g. "I don't understand", "What does

__ mean?", etc.),

b) Learning

The Natural Approach is designed to be consistent with what is known of

monitor functioning. The absence of error correction in the classroom is a

recognition that there are constraints on when the conscious grammar is used:

students are expected to utilize the Monitor only at home, when they have time,

'Nhen they are focused on form, and when they know, Of are learning, a rule. At the

university level, grammar homework is assigned to everyone, but it is conceivable

that the Natural Approach can be adapted for variations in Monitor use, with varying

amounts of homework, or different type homework aSSignments for under, or optimal

users. While little experimentation has been done with children, SLA theory predicts

that younger children would not profit from grammar homework, while older children

27

and adolescents might be able to handle limited amounts. (KRASHEN, 1982)

3.8. TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGES - "THE SILENT WAY"

In Gattegno's view, the mind is an aclive agent capable of constructing its

own inner criteria for learning. The three key words of the philosophy behind this

approach are independence, autonomy, and responsibility. The 'silent way' assumes

that learners work with these resources and nothing else, as they are solely

responsible for what they learn. (GATTEGNO, 1978)


- As it works, the mind draws on everything it has already acquired,

particularly its experience in learning the native language material which never

subjected to rote memorization. Rather, students become familiar with new

structures and recognize them through contextualized use and practice.

(GATIEGNO, 1976)

The teacher commonly begins by pointing at meaningless symbols on a

wall chart. These symbols stand for the syllables of the spoken language. The

students read the appropriate noises - syllables, etc. - aloud, first in chorus and

then individually. Where possible, this activity begins with a chart in the students'

native language, or in some other language in which they are literate. This chart,

called a "Fidei", contains all of the spellings for all of the syllables of the language.

The symbols on the chart are printed in various colors in such a way that symbols,

which are to be pronounced alike, are colored alike. In this way, students are able to

ignore the shapes, at least temporarily, and depend on the colors. They are

therefore unencumbered by anxieties about the shapes, and left free to concentrate

on the new sounds. The students first use their knowledge of familiar shapes to learn

the phonetic meanings of the colors. Then, switching to the Fidel of the new target

language, and guided by the teacher's gestures they use their knowledge of the

pronunciations of the colors in order to read the syllable aloud from it. Where the

new language contains sounds that are absent from the familiar language, the

teacher may Silently focus the students' attention and then give them a single clear

28

audible example of the sound. Otherwise, the teacher may up to this point have

remained completely silent. During this first phase, the teacher shapes the students'

pronunciation of the target language by means of her (largely) silent reaction - or

lack of reaction - to their efforts.

After the students can pronounce the sounds of the new language well

enough so that no native would misunderstand them, the teacher moves on to a

second phase. This phase centers on a second set of charts, which contains

miscellaneous words carefully selected from among the most common words of the

language, including the words for numerals. Using these words, together with written

numerals, the teacher leads the students to produce long numbers up to a million, a

billion, and beyond.

In the third phase, the teacher typically puts into use a set of colored

wooden (or plastic) rods a square centimeter in cross section, ranging in length from

1 to 10 centimeters. Each length has its own distinctive color. Using the charts,

together with gestures and perhaps a few spoken words, the teacher leads the

students to talk about various configurations and uses of the rods. At first, work is on

numbers and colors, but soon it moves into relative locations, and beyond that to

virtually any and all grammatical structures that the teacher thinks the student

needs.

There are other materials, which are used later in the course. Which will

not be describe here because the purpose is only to show examples of how the

basic principles of the Silent Way are realized in practice. The later materials and

techniques embody the same principles as the three phases that have already been

described.

Throughout at least the initial phases, the students meet one clearly new

element of the language at a time. The students know that they are expected to work

only on this point, using Vv11atever resources they already have at their disposal.

They feel that what they have done has moved them toward their long-term goal in

an efficient way, and that they have worked both well and thoroughly. The teacher is

matter-of-fact both about the students' successes and about their errors, but he

always shows by his manner that he accepts the students as persons.

29

The teacher generally exercises the initiative in deciding which syllable or

word the students will work on at any given moment, or which rod structure will be

built. Within his initiative, however, he provides frequent situations in which the

students have more than one correct response available to them. Students are

engaged in a constant series of trial-and-error approximations to the language.

When the students respond correctly to the teacher's initiative, he usually

does not react with any overt confirmation that what they did was right. If a student's

response is wrong, on the other hand, he indicates that the student needs to do

further work on the word or phrase; if he thinks it necessary, he actually shows the

student exactly where the additional work is to be done. Sometimes points, which

have not been completely mastered, are left to clarify themselves overnight.

The teacher is almost always silent.

The teacher uses a collapsible metal pOinter to guide the students'

attention to the charts or rods, even when they are within easy reach of his hand.

Students frequently help one another, and learn from overhearing one

another.

There is no memorization, no translation, and no repetition for its own

sake in the absence of meaning.

3.9. SUGGESTOPEDIA.

It was introduced by Georgi Lozanov (1978), a psychotherapist and

physician, who believes that relaxation techniques and concentration will help

learners tap their subconscious resources and retain greater amounts of vocabulary

and structure than they ever thought possible.


- The material is presented in context through lengthy dialogues, which

are introduced in two "concertsn phases. The dialogues are constructed so as to

have continuity in plot and context throughout the course.

30

- After both concerts are finished, there is an eight hours follow up

session on the new material, called the activation phase. At this point, students

engage in role-plays and practice the activities to "activate" the material they have

learned in the concerts. When grammatical explanations are needed, they are

provided in the native language. (LOZANOV, 1978)

The "classic" Suggestopedia class, as conducted in Losanov's Institute of

Suggestology in Sofia, Bulgaria, consists of the following. Courses are given to small

groups, around 12 students at a time, and are intensive, meeting for four hours per

day for one month. They consist of three parts:

1. Review, done via traditional conversations, games, plays, etc. It may

include some exercises and error correction, but does not include the use of a

language lab or pattern drill.

2. Presentation of new material. New material is introduced in the form of

dialogues based on situations familiar to the students. Bancroft notes that ~new

material is presented in a somewhat traditional way, with the necessary grammar

and translation" (p.170). The dialogues are very long. According to Bushman and

Madsen (1976), they run from 10 to 14 pages.

3. This portion is the "truly original feature" of Suggestopedia and it is

divided into two parts. In the first part, the active seance, the dialogue is read by the

teacher, while students follow the text and engage in deep and rhythmic Yoga

breathing. These activities are co-coordinated:

In accordance with the students' breathing, the teacher reads the languagematerials in the following order and with the following timing: Bulgarian (L1)translation (two seconds); foreign language phrase (four seconds); pause (twoseconds). While the foreign language phrase is being read, the students retaintheir breath for four seconds, look at the appropriate part of the text, andmentally repeat to themselves the given phrase or word~group in the FL.Concentration is greatly promoted by the retention or suspension of breath.(Bancroft, p.171)

The second part, labeled the passive or concert part of the seance,

involves music. The central activity is the teacher's reading of the dialogue "with an

emotional or artistic intonation" (Bancroft, p.171). The students, "with eyes closed,

meditate on the text" while baroque music is played. The musical selections are

31

specifically chosen to contribute to a "state of relaxation and meditation.. that is

necessary for unconscious absorption of the language materials" (Bancroft, p.172).

In discussing adaptations of the Sofia method, Bancroft notes that "three

elements of the Lozanov Method are considered essential for the system to work

effectively: (1) an attractive classroom (with soft lighting) and a pleasant classroom

atmosphere; (2) a teacher with a dynamic personality who is able to act out the

materials and motivate the students to learn; (3) a state of relaxed alertness in the

students .." (p.172).

In Suggestopedia, each member of the class is given a new name and

role to play, "to overcome inhibitions" (p.170). Other Suggestopedia techniques and

attitudes will be discussed below, as we work through the analysis according to input

requirements for acquisition.


(i) Comprehensible. Several Suggestopedia procedures are specifically

designed to aid comprehensibility of input. Initial dialogues are based on situations

familiar to the student, and the use of the students' first language in Part One is

partly justified on the ground that it helps the student confirm he has indeed

understood the text presented in the target language. (Racle, 1979, p.100)

(ii) Interesting / relevant. The topics of the dialogues are designed not

only to be of inherent interest, but also to be of some practical value and relevant to

students' needs. In a Suggestopedia course designed to teach French to

Anglophone public servants in Canada, at the Public Service Commission in Ottawa,

the aim was to take into account both student interest and their communicative

needs in the office situation (Public Service CommisSion, 1975). Also, Novakov,

cited (and translated into French) by Racle, 1979, notes that "Les situations

presentees sont typiques, reelles, contiennent un message et sont proches de

I'experience des elflVeS,ce qui facilite leur activite" (p.99).

(iii) Filter level. While Suggestopedia attempts to meet the other goals

discussed both above and below, its primary focus and greatest apparent success is

here. Practically every feature of Suggestopedia is aimed at relaxing the student,

reducing anxieties, removing mental blocks, and building confidence. Here are just a

few more examples:

32

The design of the classroom is meant to produce "a pteasant and warm

environment" (Public Service Commission, 1975, p.29). Students are seated on

comfortable chairs in a circle to "encourage informal contact and free natural

communication" (Bushman and Madsen, 1976, p.32). The traditional classroom it is

felt, calls to mind the frustration, failure, and artificiality of many previous learning

efforts.

The speciat breathing exercises have as their goal both increased mental

alertness and reduction of tension. Bancroft reports that American adaptions of

Suggestopedia also utilize physical exercises (stretching and bending), and "mind-

calming exercises", in addition to Yogic breathing to help students achieve the

desired state of relaxed alertness.

Music is also used as a means of lowering anxiety and diminishing

tension, and inducing the state to relaxed alertness considered optimal for second

language acquisition.

Another key Suggestopedic idea aimed at lowering the filter is the

behavior of the teacher. Suggestopedia considers the "authority" of the teacher to be

very important ("an integral part of the method and not just a desirable characteristic

of the teacher"; Stevick, 1980, p.238). The teacher's behavior is meant to build the

students' confidence both in their own potential for second language acquisition and

in the method itself; the teacher should be confident, but not tyrannical, exercise firm

over-all control but also encourage student initiative (for excellent discussion, see

Stevick, 1980, Chapters 2 and 18).

(iv) Not grammatically sequenced. There is a deliberate attempt to include

a certain amount of grammar during the first one month intensive course (Racle,

1979, p.95 lists the structures covered for FrenCh). It does not appear to be the

case, however, that a rigid sequence is followed. All writers on Suggestopedia I have

read emphasize that the focus, from the very beginning, is on communication, and

the dialogues do not seem to focus on specific points of grammar. According to

Bushmann and Madsen, "Dialogues are rambling conversations loosely aggregated

around common themes, vvhich cover a great deal of territory with considerable built-

in-redundancy" (p.33). Suggestopedia seems to depend on the net of grammatical

structures provided by successful communication.

11

(v) Quantity. Suggestopedia seems to meet this requirement as well.

While there is some explanation in the first language, the long and varied dialogue

dominates Ihe session, both as pure input (parts two and three) and as a basis for

communicative use of the Le (part one).

(vi) Tools for conversational management. This is not mentioned explicitly,

but may be covered, since the dialogues attempt to be realistic. There is no explicit

mention, however, of giving students the tools they need to converse with more

competent speakers.

b) Learning

Content precedes form. Accurate pronunciation and grammar are to come

in due course. While there is error correction and grammar explanation in part one of

each lesson, grammar use in Suggestopedia apparently does not interfere with

communication. (KRASHEN, 1982)

3.10. HUMANISTIC APPROACH

A reaction to the general lack of affective considerations in both

audiolingualism and cognitive code.

a) Respect is emphasized for the individual (each student, the teacher)

and for his feelings.

b) Communication that is meaningful to the learner is emphasized.

c) Instruction involves much work in pairs and small groups.

d) Class atmosphere is viewed as more important than materials or

methods.

e) Peer support and interaction is needed for learning.

f) Learning a foreign language is viewed as a self-realization experience.

g) The teacher is viewed as a counselor or facilitator.

h) The teacher should be proficient in the target language and the

student's native language since translation may be used heavily in the initial stages

to help students feel at ease; later it is gradually phased out. (MURCIA, 1991)

34

3.11. BASEDAPPROACH

An outgrowth of research in first language acquisition, which led some

language methodologisls 10assume that second or foreign language learning is very

similar to first language acquisition.

a) Listening comprehension is very important and is viewed as the basic

skill that will allow speaking, reading, and writing to develop spontaneously over time

given the right conditions.

b) Learners should begin by listening to meaningful speech and by

responding nonverbally in meaningful ways before they produce any language

themselves.

c) Learners should not speak until they feel ready to do so; this results in

better pronunciation than vvhen the learner is forced to speak immediately.

d) Learners progress by being exposed to meaningful input that is just one

step beyond their level of competence.

e) Rule learning may help learners monitor (or become aware of) what

Ihey do, but it will not aid their acquisition or spontaneous use of the target

language.

f) Error correction is seen as unnecessary and perhaps even

counterproductive; the important thing is that the learners can understand and can

make themselves understood.

3.12. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH

Grew oul of the work of anthropological linguists and Firthian linguists,

\0\1110 view language first and foremost as a system for communication:

a) It is assumed that the goal of language teaching is the learner's ability

to communicate in the target language.

35

b) It is assumed that the content of a language course will include

semantic notions and social functions, not just linguistic structures.

c) Students regularly work in groups or pairs to transfer (and, if necessary,

negotiate) meaning in situations where one person has information that the other

lacks.

d) Students often engage in role-play or dramatization to adjust their use

of the target language to different social contexts.

e) Classroom materials and activities are often authentic to reflect real-life

situations and demands.

f) Skills are integrated from the beginning; a given activity might involve

reading, speaking, listening, and perhaps also writing (this assumes the learners are

educated and literate).

g) The teacher's role is primarily to facilitate communication and only

secondarily to correct errors.

h) The teacher should be able to use the target language fluently and

appropriately in class.

3.13. THE TASK - BASED LEARNING FRAMEWORK

Learners need an introduction to the topic, and ways to help them recall

useful words and phrases and learn vital new ones that will help them cope with the

task and the text or recording. To achieve familiarity with the topic lexis, a range of

short pre-task activities was suggested. It explored different ways of helping students

to understand task instructions, and discussed the effects of preparation time. The

value of exposure to the target language was underlined.

The final part described alternative ways of setting up tasks, varying

patterns of interaction and turn taking. It suggests solutions to typical problems that

teachers often face concerning pair-and group work. The author suggests that

learners be asked to help draw up guidelines for group work and class management.

The balance of mother tongue and target language is also examined.

)6

In conclusion, here is a list of the main advantages of adopting TBL.

• A task-based framework for language learning aims at stimulating

language use and providing a range of learning opportunities for students of all

levels and abilities.

• The role of tasks is to encourage learners to activate and use whatever

language they already have, both for comprehension and for speaking and writing.

• The role of the task-planning-report cycle is to stimulate a natural

desire in the learner to improve upon that language.

• Tasks based on texts and recordings of spoken language provide

learners with a rich exposure to spoken and vvritten language in use. This provides

an environment, which aids natural acquisition.

• The language focus component enables learners to examine that

exposure, and systematize their knowledge of grammar.

• The texts and recordings used in task cycles form a pedagogic corpus

of data for use in class. This provides a clear and familiar context for the teaching of

grammar and other language features. (WILLIS, 1996)

CONCLUSION

This work intended to present a brief study of grammar and its historical

development. There are many aspects that can still be developed and researched.

The main focus was grammar in different periods, methods and

approaches and it gives a general idea how grammar was treated in each of them.

An important fact is that each period had distinct methods or approaches,

but all of them worked in their own way.

Nowadays, there is much discussion on which method or approach to

follow. It is not, of course, easy to determine a specific one. There is also a question

about working or not with grammar points. The conclusion is that grammar can and

must be used. There is no good or bad method or approach, but there are good

aspects in all of them that can be followed, even nowadays. It is not something to be

left or forgotten. Furthermore, if each method or approach has good aspects they

can be used in the classroom.

Each teacher has to adapt ways of teaching grammar according to the

needs of the students.

This paper shows several methods and approaches - and in all of them

there are ways of helping people to learn languages. But throughout, it sets before

the reader only one way - only one man's way - of looking at methods and

approaches. No one else will see them exactly in one way, or follow precisely as

they have been laid out here.

Obviously, not every method being used today can be described in an

inventory such as this, but it is hoped that a brief perspective of grammar and its

historical development was obtained.

It is known that language acquisition does not require extensive use of

grammatical rules, and does not need to be based only on tedious drill. Real

38

language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking skills emerge significantly later

than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect. The best methods are

therefore those that supply "comprehensible input" in low anxiety situations,

containing messages that students really want to hear and allow them to produce

when they are "ready".

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ASHER, J.; KUSUDO, J. and TORRE, Rita de Ia.Through Commands: the second field test.(1974):24-32.

BATSTONE, R. Does Grammar Rule? In English Teaching Professional n.1. Oct.1996: 8-9.

Learning a Second LanguageModern Language Journal, 58

BLOOMFIELD, L. Language. England: New Edition, 1933.

CHOMSKY, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mounton andCo., 1957.

FINOCHIARO, M.; BRUMFIT, C. The Functional National Approach. Oxford,1983.

GATIEGNO, C. The Common Sense of Foreign Language Teaching. New York:Educational Solutions, 1976.

KRASHEN, S. D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.University of Southern California, 1982.

KRESS, G. R. Halliday: System .,nd Function in Language. Press University. S.Carolina, 1976.

LYONS, J. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, 1971.

LOZANOV, G. Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy: New York: Gordonand Breach, 1978.

MURCIA, M. C. Teaching English as a Second Foreign Language. Oxford,1991.

OMAGGIO, A C. Teaching Language in Context. Oxford, 1986.

ROBINS, R. H. General Linguistics. An Introductory Survey. Press University,1964.

STEVICK, E. W. A Way and Ways. Teaching Languages Massachusetts, 1980.

TERRELL, T. D. A Natural Approach to Second Language Acquisition andLearning. Modern Language Journal, 61 (1977): 325-37.

THOMAS, O. Transformational Grammar and the Teacher of English. New York:Education Solutions, 1979.

WILLIS, J. A Framework for Task-based Learning. Longman Handbooks forLanguage Teachers. Oxford,1996.

a historical overview of grammar in elt - tcc...

Documents