Teaching Grammar

DIANE LARSEN-FREEMAN

In 'Teaching G ram m ar" Larsen-Freeman challenges conventional views of grammar Instead of simply
analyzing grammatical form, she includes grammatical meaning and use as well. Then, building on
w hat is known about the way grammar is learned, she offers ways to teach grammar consistent with
contem porary th eo ry and the need to "focus on form " within a meaning-based or communicative
approach.

IN T R O D U C T IO N room. as is the case when English is taught as a

foreign language. In contrast, research has shown
Over the centuries, second language educators
that teachers who focus students’ attention on lin­
have alternated between two tvpes of approaches
guistic form during communicative interactions
to language teaching: those that locus on analvz-
are m ore effective than those who never focus on
ing the language and those that locus on using
form or who onlv do so in decontextualized gram ­
the language. T he form er have students learn
m ar lessons (Spada an d Lightbown 1993;
the elem ents of language (e.g.. sounds, struc­
Lightbown 1998). It follows, then, that most edu­
tures, vocabularv), building toward students'
cators concur with the need to teach grammatical
being able to use the elem ents to com m unicate.
form. However, thev advise doing so bv “focusing
The latter encourage students to use the lan-
on form ” within a meaning-based or com m unica­
guage from the start, however falteringlv. in
tive approach in o rd e r to avoid a retu rn to ana­
ord er to acquire it. Earlv in the previous c e n tu ­
lytic a p p ro a c h e s in which d e c o n te x tu a liz e d
ry, this distinctive pattern was observable in the
language forms were the object of study.
shift from the m ore form -oriented grammar-
Focusing on grammatical form du rin g com ­
translation approach to the use-oriented direct
municative interactions rather than forms in iso­
m eth o d (Celce-Murcia 1980). A m ore recent
example of the shift is the loss of popularity of lation (Long 1991) is one wav to prevent the
the cognitive-code approach, in which analyzing pendulum from swinging bevond its point of
structures an d applying rules are c o m m o n prac­ equilibrium. In this chapter, we will encourage a
tices, a n d the rise o f m ore com m unicative balance between gram m ar a n d com m unication.
approaches, which emphasize language use over The first step is to come to a b roader u n d e r ­
rules of language usage (Wicldowson 1978). standing of gram m ar than has usually been the
Even though such language use approaches case. Equating gram m ar with form and the teach­
as task-based a nd content-based are in favor these ing of gram m ar with the teaching of explicit lin­
days, educators agree that speaking an d writing guistic rules concerning form are unduly limiting,
accurately is part of communicative competence, representing what we have called myths (Larsen-
just as is being able to get o n e ’s m eaning across Freem an 1995). which onlv serve to perpetuate
in an appropriate manner. Further, it has been the pendulum swing between language form and
observed that although some learners can “pick language use. Gram m ar is about form and one
u p ” accurate linguistic form from exposure to way to teach form is to give students rules; how­
the target language, few learners are capable of ever, gram m ar is about much m ore than form,
doing so efficiently, especially if they are postpu- and its teaching is ill served if students are simply
bescent or if their exposure is limited to the class­ given rules.
 Thus, in this chapter, we will entertain a In the wedge of our pie having to do with
m ore robust view of grammar. Then, we will structure, we have those overt lexical2, an d m or­
briefly touch upon issues concerning its learning. phological forms that tell us how a particular
Finally, we will discuss its teaching. gram m ar structure is constructed and how it is
sequenced with o th er structures in a sentence or
A Three-Dimensional Grammar text. With certain structures, it is also im portant
Framework to note the phonem ic graphem ic patterns (see
the discussion of possessives and phrasal verbs
Since our goal is to achieve a better fit between
below for examples). In the semantic wedge, we
gram m ar and com m unication, it is not helpful to
deal with what a gram m ar structure means. Note
think of gram m ar as a discrete set of m eaning­
that the m eaning can be lexical (a dictionary def­
less, dccontextualized, static structures. X or is it
inition for a preposition like down, for instance)
helpful to think o f gram m ar solelv as prescriptive
or it can be grammatical (e.g.. the conditional
rules about linguistic form, such as injunctions
states both a condition and outcom e or result).
against splitting infinitives or ending sentences
It is very difficult to arrive at a definition of prag­
with prepositions. Grammatical structures not
matics distinct from semantics, and thus we tire
only have (morphosvntactic) form, thev are also
sympathetic to Levinson's (1983) suggestion that
used to express m eaning (semantics) in context-
pragmatics deals with all aspects of m eaning not
appropriate use (pragmatics). In order to guide
dealt with bv semantic theorv!
us in constructing an approach to teaching gram ­
Since this definition is too broad for our
m ar that strives to m eet this definition, it would
purposes here, however, we will limit pragmatics
be helpful to have a frame of reference.
to m ean "the study of those relations between
O u r framework takes the form of a pit-
chart. Its shape helps us to make salient that in language aircl context that are grammaticalized,
dealing with the complexity of grammar, three or encoded in the structure of a language”
dimensions must concern us: structure or form, (Levinson 1983. p. 9). We will leave the term con­
semantics or m eaning, a n d the pragmatic condi­ text broad eno u g h though, so that context can be
tions governing u se .1 Moreover, as thev art- social (i.e.. a context created bv interlocutors,
wedges o f a single pie, we note further that the their relationship to one another, the setting), or
dimensions are not hierarchically arranged as it can be a linguistic discourse context (i.e., the
manv traditional characterizations of linguistic language that precedes or follows a particular
strata depict.2 Finally, the arrows connecting one structure in the discourse or how a particular
wedge of the pie with a n o th e r illustrate the inter­ genre or register of discourse affects the use of a
connectedness of the three dimensions: thus a structure), or context can even m ean the pre­
change in anv one wedge will hat e repercussions suppositions one has about the context.
for the o th er two. T he influence of pragmatics mav be ascer­
tained bv asking two questions:

1. W hen or whv does a speaker/w riter choose

a particular gram m ar structure over an o th e r
that could express the same m eaning or
accomplish the same purpose? For example,
what factors in the social context might
explain a paradigmatic choice such as why a
speaker chooses a yes-no question rather
than an imperative to serve as a request for
information (e.g., l)o you have the tiwe? versus
Please tell me the time)}
2. W hen or why does a sp e ak er/w riter vary
the form of a particular linguistic structure?
 For instance, what linguistic discourse factors P O S S E S S IV E S
would result in a syntagmatic choice such as
the indirect object being placed before the
direct object to create Jenny gave Hank a
brand-new comb versus Jenny gave a brand-nrw
comb to Hank ?
Despite the p erm eable boundaries between
the dimensions, we have fo u n d it useful to view
gram m ar from these three perspectives. We trust
that the utility of this a pproach will becom e
clearer as we proceed. A teacher of gram m ar
m ight begin by asking the questions posed in the
three wedges of o u r pie (for the sake of simplic­
ity, labeled form, meaning, and use) for anv given
gram m ar point.
M eaning o f Possessive Besides possession, the
possessive or genitive form can indicate descrip­
tion (a debtor's prison). am ount (a month's holiday),
relationship (Jack's wife), part-whole (my brother’s
hand), and origin/agent (Shakespeare's tragedies).
.Also, although all languages have a wav of
signaling possession, thev do not all regard the
same items as possessable. For example, Spanish
speakers refer to a bodv part using the definite
article instead of a possessive form. ESL/EFL
students will have to learn the semantic scope of
the possessive form in English.
U se o f Possessive Filling in this wedge requires
that we ask when the 's is used to express posses­
sion as opposed to o ther structures that can be
used to convev this same meaning. For example,
Let us consider an example. A com m on
possession in English can be expressed in other
structure to be taught at a high-beginning level of
wavs— with a possessive d eterm iner (e.g., his, her,
English proficiencv is the 4 possessive form. If we
and their) or with the periphrastic of the form (e.g.,
analyze this possessive form as answers to our ques­
the legs of the table). Possessive determ iners are pre­
tions, we would fill in the wedges as below (analysis
sumably used when the referent of the possessor
based on Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman 1999).
is clear from the context. While ESL/EFL books
F orm o f Possessive This way of form ing pos- will often sav that the of the possessive is used with
sessives in English requires inflecting regular n o n h u m a n head nouns and ’s with h u m an head
singular nouns an d irregular plural nouns not nouns, we are aware of certain conditions where
ending in s with ’.v or bv adding an apostrophe this rule does not apply. For example, native
after the s ’en d in g of regular plural nouns and speakers often prefer to use the 's even with inan­
singular nouns end in g in the sound /s/. This imate head nouns if the head nouns are per­
form o f the possessive has three allomorphs: /z/, form ing some action (e.g., the train’s arrival was
$/, a n d /az/. which are phonetically conditioned: delayed) / Finally, students will have to learn to dis­
z/ is u sed w hen it occurs after voiced consonants tinguish contexts in which a n o u n com p o u n d
and vowels, s/ following voiceless consonants, (table leg) is m ore appropriate than either the ’s
and b z ! occurs after sibilants. form or the of the form.
 Thus, by using ou r ternary scheme, we can looked the word up in the dictionary). Phrasal verbs
classify the facts that affect the form, m eaning, also have distinctive stress a n d juncture patterns,
an d use of the possessiye structure. This is only a which distinguish them from verb phis preposi­
first step. Teachers would not necessarily present tion combinations:
all these facts to students, recognizing that stu­
Alicia looked iip#the word.
dents can a n d do learn some of them on their
own. A nd certainly no teacher would choose to .Alicia w alked#up the street.
present all these facts in a single lesson or on
M ean ing o f Phrasal Verbs T here are literal
on e occasion. Nevertheless, distributing the fea­
phrasal verbs, such as to hang up, where if one
tures of the target grammatical structure am ong
knows the m eaning of the verb or the particle or
the three wedges of the pie can give teachers an
both, it is not difficult to figure out the m eaning of
u n d e rs ta n d in g of the scope a n d m ultidimen-
the verb-particle combination. Unfortunately, for
sionalitv of the structure. In turn, this u n d e r ­
the ESL./EFL student there are far m ore instances
standing will guide teachers in deciding which
of figurative phrasal verbs (e.g., to run into, m ean­
facts c o ncerning the possessive will be taught
ing "meet bv chance") where a knowledge of the
a n d when an d how to do so.
m eaning of the verb and of the particle is of little
Before continuing to explore these deci­
help in discerning the m eaning of the phrasal
sions, however, it might be worthwhile to applv
verb. Moreover, as with single-word verbs, phrasal
ou r approach to an o th er gram m ar structure. Let
verbs can have m ore than one m eaning (e.g., to
us analyze phrasal verbs this time. Bv considering
come across, m eaning "to discover by chance” as in
the three questions posed earlier, we can state the
1 came across this old book in the library, or when used
following about phrasal verbs (analysis based
intransitively, "to make an im pression” as in
upon Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman 1999):
Richard came across well at the convention.
PH RA SA L VERBS
U se o f Phrasal V erbs W hen is a phrasal verb
p refe rre d to a single-word verb that conveys the
same m eaning (e.g., put out a fire versus extin­
guish a firef: For the most part, phrasal verbs
seem to be m ore c om m on in informal spoken
discourse as opposed to m ore formal written dis­
course. W hen is one form of a phrasal verb pre­
ferred to another: i.e.. when should the particle be
separated from its verb (e.g., put out a fire versus
put a fire out)} Erteschik-Shir’s (1979) principle of
dom inance seems to work well to define the cir­
cumstances favoring particle movement: If a noun
phrase (XP) object is dom inant (i.e., a long, elab­
orate XP representing new inform ation), it is
likelx to occur after the particle; if the direct
object is short, old information (e.g., a pro n o u n ),
F o rm o f Phrasal Verbs Phrasal verbs are two-part it would naturally occur before the particle.
verbs comprising a verb and a particle (e.g.. to look
up). Sometimes, they can be constructed with Identifying the Challenge Again, we would like
three parts in that a preposition can follow the to underscore the fact that it would not be rea­
particle (e.g., to keep up with). As with all other sonable for the ESL/EFL teacher to present all of
verbs, phrasal verbs are either transitive or intran­ this information to students at once. T he frame­
sitive. A distinctive feature of phrasal verbs is that work does, however, help to organize the facts.
for manv of them the particle can be separated Furtherm ore, by doing this, teachers can more
from its verb bv an intervening object 1 e.g.. Alicia easily identify’ where the learning challenge (s)
will lie for their students. Identifying the chal­ to u n d e rsta n d their students’ learning process.
lenging dim ension(s) is a kev step which should This u n d e rsta n d in g can be partly inform ed bv
be taken p rior to any pedagogical treatm ent. insights from se c o n d lan g u a g e acquisition
All three dimensions will have to be mas­ (SIA) research c o ncerning how students n a tu ­
tered bv the learner (although not necessarily rally develop their ability to inte rp re t a n d p ro ­
consciously). For phrasal verbs, it is the m eaning duce grammatical utterances. T h re e insights are
dim ension which ESL/EFL students struggle g erm ane to o u r topic:
with most. It is often the fact that there is no sys­
tematic wav of learning to associate the verb and 1. Learners do n o t learn structures one at a
the particle. A dding to the stu dents’ woes, new- time. It is not a m atter of accum ulating struc­
phrasal verbs are constantly being coined. Bv tural entities (R utherford 1987).’’ For exam ­
recognizing where students will likely struggle, ple. it is not the case that learners master the
an im p o rtan t clue is given the teacher as to definite article, and when that is mastered,
where to focus work on phrasal verbs. We will move on to the simple past tense. From their
amplify this point later. For now, however, it is first e n c o u n te r with the definite article,
worth noting that although it is gram m ar struc­ learners m ight master one of its pragmatic
tures which we are dealing with, it is not alwavs functions — e.g., to signal the uniqueness of
the form of the structures which creates the the following n oun. But even if thev are able
most significant learning challenge. to do this appropriately, it is n o t likely that
thev will alwavs p ro duce the definite article
“ G ra m m a rin g ” We should pause h e re to when n e e d ed because learners ty pically take
acknowledge that as im portant as it is to develop a long time before thev are able to do this
our understanding of the grammatical facts of the consistently. Thus, lea rn in g is a gradual
language we are teaching, it is not these facts that process involving the m apping of form, m ea n ­
we wish o u r students to learn. We are not inter­ ing. and use; structures do not spring forth in
ested in filling o ur students' heads with gram m at­ learners' interlanguage fully developed and
ical paradigms and syntactic rules. If thev knew all error-free.
the rules that had ever been written about 2. Even when learners appear to have mastered
English but were not able to applv them, we a particular structure, it is not unc o m m o n to
would not be doing our jobs as teachers. Instead, find backsliding occurring with the introduc­
what we do hope to do is to have students be able tion of new forms to the learners’ interlan­
to use grammatical structures accurately, m ea n ­ guage. For example, the learner who has
ingfully, and appropriately In o ther words, gram­ finally mastered the third person singular
m ar tea c h in g is not so m u ch knowledge m arker on present-tense verbs is likely to over­
transmission as it is skill development. In fact, it generalize the rule and applv it to newly
is better to think of teaching “gram m aring" em erging modal verbs, thus producing errors
(L arsen-F reem an 1997; 2001), ra th e r than such as She cans speak Spanish. Teachers should
"grammar." Bv thinking of gram m ar as a skill to not despair, therefore, at regressive behavior
be mastered, rather than a set o f rules to be on the part of their students. Well-formedness
memorized, we will be helping ESL/EFL stu­ is usually restored once the new additions
dents go a lon g way toward the goal o f being able have been incorporated and the system self-
to accurately convcv m eaning in the m a n n e r thev organizes or restructures.
deem appropriate. 3. Second language learners relv on the knowl-
edge an d the experience they have. If they are
beginners, thev will rely on their LI as a
The Learning Process source of hypotheses about how the L2 works;
However im portant an d necessary it is for teach­ when thev are m ore advanced, they wall relv
ers to have a com prehensive knowledge of their increasingly on the L2. In un d e rsta n d in g this,
subject matter, it is equally im portant for them the teacher realizes that there is no n e e d to
 teach everything about a structure to a communicatively o rie n ted approach, starting
group of students: rather, the teacher can with a com m unicative activity such as task-
build u p o n what the students already know. or c o n tent-based m aterial (see ch a p te rs bv
It also follows that the challenging d im e n ­ Savignon an d Snow in this volume). T h e gram ­
sion for a given grammatical structure will m ar that is taught is not scheduled in advance as
shift from class to class d e p e n d in g on the it is with a structural syllabus/PPP approach, but
students' LI backgrounds and level of L2 rather supports students in their com pletion of
proficiency. Successful tea c h in g involves the comm unicative task or their m aking sense of
identifying the relevant challenge for a par­ a particular content area. In addition, or alter­
ticular g roup of students. nately. teachers respond to gram m ar errors that
students commit when engaged in com m unica­
To these three observations, we will add a
tion. As such, it reverses the norm al sequence
fourth one that is not to our knowledge treated in
(Skelian 1998b). putting com m unication first,
the SLA research literature, but rather one based
rather than selecting and presenting a gram m ar
upon o u r observations and supported bv learning
structure in advance of its use in context.
theorists (e.g., Gagne a n d Medsker 1996).
Even if the gram m ar to be worked on is
4. Different learning processes are responsible derivative rather than scheduled in advance, a
for different aspects of language. Indeed, teacher must still decide how to address it. A
given that language is as complicated as it is, variety of options have been suggested (see
one would not expect the learning process to Doughtv a n d Williams 1998: R. Ellis 1998),
be any simpler. It is clearlv an oversimplifica­
although the research findings u n d e rp in n in g
tion to treat all gram m ar learning as resulting
them are somewhat sparse and sometimes con­
from habit formation or from rule formation.
tradictory (see Mitchell 2000 for a recent review).
Being aware that different learning processes
O ne option is simple' to bring to students' atten­
contribute to SLA suggests a need for the
tion, or to prom ote their uoticingoi. some feature
teaching process to respect the differences.
of a grammatical structure. For example, if a stu­
How the nature of the language challenge
dent makes an error and the teacher decides to
and the learning process affect teaching deci­
respond to it. then the teacher might recast or
sions is the issue to which we turn next.
reformulate what the student has said or written
incorrectly in a m ore accurate, meaningful, or
appropriate manner. For instance, if it is an error
The Teaching Process of form, the teacher would recast the stu d e n t’s
production accurately.
Consistent with the wav we are conceiting gram­
m ar in this chapter, teaching gram m ar means Student : This is Juan notebook.
enabling language students to tise linguistic forms T eacher : Oh. T h at is Ju a n 's notebook.
accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. In (perceiving the e rro r to be the
this section we discuss various teaching strategies form of the possessive)
that can be employed to m eet this goal.
If m eaning is the problem , the teacher
In keeping with language form approaches,
would recast what the student, has said in a
traditional gram m ar teaching has employed a
m eaningful wav.
structural syllabus and lessons composed of three
phases: presentation, practice, and production Student : I need to look at the word in the
(or com m unication), often referred to as "the dictionary.
PPP” approach. As we saw earlier, underlying this T eacher: You n e e d to look u p the word
ap p ro a c h is the assum ption that one -vuemati- in the dictionary.
cally builds towards com m unication. However, (perceiving the phrasal verb
as m e n tio n e d in the introduction to :hi> chap­ look up to be a better form for
ter, these davs, most teachers em bim c a m ore what the stu d en t m eans to sav)
 A nd if use is the problem , the teacher the garden path." If ESL EFL students were told
would recast what the student has said in a m ore that the English past tense is fo rm e d with -eel, for
a p p г о p ri a t e ill a n n e r : example, this would be leading students down
the garden path as there are manv irregular
Student : I arise at six in the m orning.
verbs in English where this rule will not work to
T EA( ;her : OK. Yon get up at six in the
p ro duce the past tense. T he reason for giving
m orning.
students onlv a partial explanation is that they
(perceiving that a phrasal verb would
are m ore likelv to learn the exceptions to the
be m ore appropriate to convev the
rule if thev are corrected at the m o m e n t the
student's in te n d e d m eaning)
overgeneralization e rro r is m ade th an if they are
A m ore proactive way to p ro m o te students' given a long list of "exceptions to the rule” to
noticing a particular grammatical structure is to m em orize in advance.
highlight it in a text in some fashion. Enhancing A n o th e r technique for directing stu dents’
the input (Sharwood Smith 1993) m ight be an attention to form is called input processing (Van
especially effective war to focus students' a tten­ Patten 1996). R ather than working on rule
tion on g ram m ar structures that operate at the learning an d rule application, in p u t processing
discourse level of language, such as articles or activities push learners to a ttend to properties of
verb tenses. Bv boldfacing all the normally language du rin g activities where the structure is
insalient articles in a given passage, for instance, being used meaningfully. For instance, if stu­
the students' attention could be drawn to them. dents tire asked to carrv out com m ands that
Even simple choosing texts in which a particular teachers issue, thev are working on m atching the
structure or structural contrast is especially fre­ imperative form to its use in a m eaningful wav.
q u e n t would e n h a n ce its salience and thus might O f course, sometimes a comm unicative task
p rom ote noticing, a practice sometimes called itself requires that students a ttend to relevant
input flooding. features of the target language (Loschkv and
Still a n o th e r option is to use a consciousness- Blev-Yroman 1993). such as when using a partic­
raising task, in which it is the students' job to ular grammatical structure is essential to com ­
induce a grammatical generalization from the pleting the task. An exam ple of this is w hen
data thev have been given. For example. Fotos students have to use particular prepositions to
and Ellis (1991) ask students to work out the accurately give each o th er directions using a
rule for indirect object alternation in English map. T he a d d e d value of using a comm unicative
(e.g., The\ g m ]e a gold watch to him./Thes gave him task to pro m o te noticing is that students are
a gold watch.) bv giving the students example sen­ enc o u ra g e d to use the target structures, thereby
tences where indirect object alternation can and generating "o u tp u t” that attracts feedback from
cannot be successfully applied. Indirect object a teacher or a n o th e r student.
alternation is difficult in English an d therefore is Speaking of output, it might be suiprising to
an ideal candidate for this sort of explicit rule experienced teachers to read descriptions of all
articulation. Indeed. Carroll and Swain (1993) these teaching options with veiw little mention of
suggest that when the rules are not that clear-cut, student production. But, of course, students’ pro­
detailed instruction with explicit metalinguistic duction plat’s a veiw important role in learning
feedback m at be the most helpful response to grammar. It is not enough to have awarenesses
student errors. raised if students can’t produce the language.
A n o th e r option for pro m o tin g stu d e n ts’ Output production is, therefore, extremely impor­
awareness is to use the garden path strategy tant. For one thing, it pushes students to move
(Tomascllo an d H e rro n 1988; 1989). As applied bevoncl semantic processing to syntactic process­
to g ram m ar teaching, this m eans giving students ing (Swain 1985). Then, too, when students
in fo rm a tio n a b o u t s tru c tu re w ith o u t giving attempt to produce structures, they get to test their
them the full picture, thus m aking it seem easier hypotheses on how the structure is form ed or what
than it is, or in o th er words, "leading them down it means or when it is used. Following these
attempts, as we have seen, they can receive feed­ target behavior of conveving m eaning through
back on their hvpotheses and modifv them as language. Furthermore, because students are not
necessary. engaged in target behavior, the inert knowledge
Indeed, D onato (1994) has shown how stu­ problem (Whitehead 1999) is likelv to materialize.
d e n t s ’ p a rticip a tio n in collaborative dialogue, Inert knowledge is knowledge that can be recalled
th rough which learners can provide support for when students are specificallv asked to do so but is
each other, has spurred developm ent of learners' not available lor spontaneous use. in. sav. problem
interlanguage. O th e r research (Swain and Lapkin solving, even when the knowledge is relevant to
1998) corroborates the value of an interactive dia­ the problem at hand. Knowledge remains inert
logue as both a cognitive tool and a means of when it is not available for transfer from the class­
com m unication which can prom ote grammatical room context to the outside world. We know that
development. when the psvchological conditions of learning and
Beyond these reasons for giving students an application are m atched what litis been learned is
opportunity to pro d u ce the target grammatical more likelv to be transferred (e.g.. Blaxton 1989).
structures, we have alreadv presented the idea Thus, rules and forms learned in isolated m ean­
that g ram m ar teaching can better be thought of ingless drills mav be harder to retrieve in the con­
as developing “gram m aring," i.e., helping stu­ text of communicative interaction (Segalowitz and
dents be able to use g ram m ar skillfullv. a goal G atbonton 1994). Finallv. student motivation
that requires significant practice. To this point. is likelv to be enhanced if students are able to
G a tbonton an d Segalowitz (1988) have argued interact in a wav that is meaningful to them. Then,
th at practice of gram m atical patterns can lead to too. then are likelv to be more attentive if thev are
autom atization of certain aspects of p e rfo rm ­ saving something meaningful.
ance, which, in turn, frees up students' atten- Identifying the tvpe of learning involved
tional resources to be allocated elsewhere. helps us to think about the desirable characteris­
It used to be that the practice phase of a les­ tics of am practice activity. For instance, for declar­
son was devoted almost exclusivelv to gram m ar ative knowledge to be proceduralized a great deal
drills an d exercises. Ever since the ineffective­ of meaningful practice would be required. Further,
ness of using drills which do not engage stu­ students would have to receive feedback on the
dents' attention was acknowledged, there has accuracy with which thev produced the target
been little by way of guidance offered on how to form. Then would have to be restricted to using
give students m eaningful practice. W hat follows, just the particular target form: in other words,
therefore, is an a ttem p t to fill this void. Practice structural diversitv would not be permitted.'"
activities will be addressed in terms of which Finallv. for proceduralization to occur, it would
dim ension of language thee relate to. seem important to concentrate on onlv one or two
forms at a time, although, of course, the target
Form form could be introduced in contrast to forms
From what we know of skill acquisition theory that the student alreadv controls.
(e.g., Anderson and Fincham 1994), fluency or Let us take an example and see how these
proceduralization of declarative knowledge characteristics are applied. If our students show
(e.g., knowledge of a gram m ar rule or pattern) us that thev are struggling with the inversion of
requires practice in which students use the target the subject and operator in ves-no questions, it
language point meaningfully while keeping the would be clear that their immediate learning chal­
declarative knowledge in working m em ory lenge is linguistic form. We will need to design or
(DeKevser 1998). select an activity that encourages meaningful prac­
It is im portant to emphasize meaningful prac­ tice of the pattern, not verbatim repetition. We
tice of form for several reasons. First of all, m ea n ­ want the students to concentrate on producing
ingless mechanical drills, such as repetition drills, onlv ves-no questions. A gam e like Twenty
commonlv associated with behaviorist approaches Questions would appear to meet the criteria.
to learning, do not engage the learner in the Students get to ask 20 ves-no questions about an
object or person in an attem pt to guess the iden­ O ne final example of a type of useful activity
tity; hence, they receive a b u n d a n t practice in for working on the formal dimension is a problem ­
form ing the questions, an d the questions thev solving activity. The problem to be solved could be
produce are meaningful. T he teacher would most anything, but if we are dealing with the for­
work with each student to enable him or h e r to mal dimension, then we would want it to conform
produce the pattern accurately, perhaps provid­ to the characteristics described above. An example
ing an explicit rule, perhaps not. might be an information-gap activity' where the
An example of a game that would work on students are given a class information sheet with
the form of the English possessive comes from certain items missing (see bottom of this page).
Kealev and Inness (1997). Students are given a Students could circulate asking one an o th er
family portrait in which the child’s face is missing. II7equestions (e.g., What is Beatrix’s major? How old
They are also given clues as to what the child looks is Werner?) in o rd e r to com plete the chart.
like, e.g., the child has the m o th e r’s eyebrows or A nother example m ight be a sentence-unscram ­
the father’s chin. A person from each small bling task. This is a useful problem-solving activity'
group into which the students are divided comes when the challenge is getting students to produce
to the front of the room , takes a clue, memorizes correct word order, such as when the objective is
it, a n d brings it back to his or h e r g roup so that to have students use auxiliary verbs in the proper
the feature in the clue can be drawn. This contin­ sequence.
ues until the child, a composite of his m o th er and It is im portant to take note that there is
father, is fullv drawn. n othing in h e re n t in the three examples we have
In sum, certain games are good devices for provided (games, use of rods, problem-solving
practicing gram m ar points where the challenge activities) which make them useful for address­
resides in the formal dimension. While not an ing the formal dimension; i.e., we could easily
activity in an d of itself, a n o th e r useful device for use rods to work on some aspects of the m eaning
working on the formal dimension is the use of or use dimensions. What is significant to rem e m ­
cuisenaire rods. T he rods are ideal for focusing ber is that the activity should be structured in
student attention on some syntactic property' such a wav that it is compatible with the charac­
u n d e r scrutiny. O n e example that comes to m ind teristics presented earlier.
is an adaptation of Stevick's (1980) Islamabad
technique. Practicing the form of OS' relative Meaning
clauses, students m ight be asked to use the rods
to construct a view of some spot in their h o m e ­ If the teacher has decided that the challenge of a
town. The students would be encouraged to use particular structure lies in the semantic dim en­
OS relative clauses where appropriate (e.g., There sion. then a different sort of practice activity
is a fountain that is located in the center of ins town; should be planned. It would seem that meaning
Around the fountain there are m am people who sell would call for some sort of associative learning
fruits, vegetables, and flowers, etc.). (X. Ellis 1998), where students have opportunities

N am e Age C o u n try Language M ajo r H o bby

Beatriz 18 Bolivia Spanish Dentistry

Mohammed 19 Algeria Accounting Going
to the movies
jean Claude France French Painting
18 Brazil Education Hiking
Werner 17 Swiss German Business
to associate the form an d the m eaning of the m eaning of the particle. Sometimes teachers have
particular target structure. It has been o u r expe­ ha d their students play Concentration, a version
rience that repetition is not n e e d e d to tire same of the game in yvhich the students have to associ­
extent as it is when teaching some aspect of the ate a phrasal verb written on one card yvith its def:
formal dimension. Sometimes a single pairing inition written on another card. A nother example
of form and m eaning suffices. Due to m em ory of an activity that would address this semantic chal­
constraints, it seems p ru d en t to restrict the n u m ­ lenge is an operation (Nelson and Winters 1993).
ber of new items being practiced at anv one time In an operation, a series of separate actions are
to between two and six (Asher 1996). T he stu­ perform ed to accomplish some task. T he teacher
dents would r e c e d e feedback on their ability m ight issue commands, or mime the actions yvith
to dem onstrate that thev ha d acquired the form ­ the students as she or he describes them.
m eaning bond.
I want to call up m\ friend. First, I look up
Celce-Murcia a n d Hilles (1988) m ention
the phone number. Then I write it down. I
that w hen dealing with the semantic dim ension,
pick up the receiver and punch in the num­
realia a n d pictures are very useful. Thus, for
ber. The number is busy. I hang up and.
example, if the teacher has decided to work on
decide to call back later.
the semantics of comparative forms in English to
su p p o rt some communicative task or content, he Bv practicing this operation several times,
or she m ight show students pairs of pictures a n d the students can learn to associate the form and
work with th em to m ake comparisons using the m eaning of certain phrasal verbs (call up, look up.
form that reflects the relation depicted (e.g., as pick up, etc.). If students are given an operation
_______ as, more________ than, less________ than). yvith yvhich to associate phrasal verbs, recall at a
Actions, too, can m ake m eaning salient. later time will likelv be enhanced. To determ ine
T h e initial challenge for ESL/EFL students if students can distinguish a m o n g the various
grappling with prepositions is to associate the phrasal verbs, students m ight be given phrasal
“c o re ” m ea n in g with each. Thus, prior to having verbs out of sequence and asked to m im e the
students work on direction-giving tasks using appropriate action. Feedback on their ability to
maps ( Walk to the corner. Turn right at the corner. The m atch form a n d m eaning can be given.
cinema is near the corner, next to the bank.), a good
strategy’ might be to work with students on having
Use
them make an association between a preposition
an d its m eaning in locating objects in space. O ne W hen use is the challenge, it is because student'
way of doing this is to conduct a Total Physical have shown that they are having a h a rd time
Response sequence where students act out a selecting the right structure or form for a partic­
series of com m ands along with the teacher, ular context. Working o n use ys ill involve stu­
involving the placem ent of objects in various parts dents learning that there are options to bv
of the room; e.g., Put the book next to the desk, Put exercised a n d that thev must select from am or.,
the pen on the book, Walk to the door, Stand near the them the one yvhich best suits a given context.
door, etc. O nce students appear to have m ade the Thus, relevant practice activities will proviciv
c onnection between form an d m eaning, the students with an opportunity to choose from tw
teacher can assess their ability to discriminate one or more forms the one most suitable for the con­
form -m eaning b o n d from a n o th e r bv having text and how they wish to position themsefve'
them carry out com m ands on their own and by (e.g., in a cooperative way, a polite wav, an assertive
issuing novel com m ands— e.g., Put the pen on the wav, etc.). Students would receive feedback on the
desk— and assessing their ability to comply. appropriateness of their choice. In some cases
We said earlier that a persistent challenge their choice might involve selecting between two
for stu dents’ learning phrasal verbs was the fact options (e.g., when to use the passive versus the
that the m ea n in g is often n o t detectable from active voice). O ther times, their choice would be
com bining the m ea n in g of the verb with the from am ong an array of options (e.g., which
modal verb to use when giving advice to a boss): contrast between them would occur m ight be a jo b
hence, the n u m b e r of forms being worked on at interview. In such a context, the perfect of experi­
one time would be at least two, but could involve ence is likelv to be invoked (e.g., Have you ever done
manv more. any computer programming?). .An elaboration to an
Role plat's work well when dealing with ttse affirmative answer is likelv to contain the past tense
becatise the teacher can systematically m anipu­ (e.g.. Yes, I have. I once worked on . . . or simplv, Yes.
late social variables (e.g., increase o r decrease the 117ten I worked a t .. .). Students can take turns role-
social distance between interlocutors) to have stu­ plaving the inteniew er and interviewee.
dents practice how changes in the social variables As was m entioned earlier, it is not onlv the
affect the choice of form. social context that will be involved in the choice of
For example, if students h a te shown that which forms to use, but also it is often the linguis­
they do not know how to use modals to give tic discourse context that will make a difference.
advice, thev might be asked to role-plav having a Thus, it is verv important to consider teaching dis­
■'dilemma.'' In this role plav. one person has a course gram m ar (Celce-Murcia 1991a: Hughes
problem: (e.g., the kevs to the car have been and McCarthv 1998). Such is the case with the pas­
lost. T he car is locked and the person wants to sive voice. Its use is not particularlv sensitive to
get in.) Students are asked to use modal verbs to social factors; i.e.. whether one is using the active
give advice to the person with the problem: e.g.. or passive voice does not necessarily de p e n d upon
You might try breaking the -window. You could try call­ with whom one is conversing. W hat usuallv does
ing the police. The teacher could next alter a cause students considerable clifficultv with the pas-
salient feature of the context, thus creating a new site voice, however, is determ ining when to use it.
social context in which a different modal verb The fact that the agent of an action is defocused
would be m ore appropriate. For example, the motivates the use of the passive. Furthermore, if
teacher might ask. "What if it were a toting child the agent has alreadv been established in the lin­
that had this dilemma?" A m ore appropriate guistic discourse, it would likelv not even be m en­
form and content for the advice, then, might be tioned in subsequent discourse. Thus, most passive
You had better wait for your mother to come! sentences are agentless.
On a n o th e r occasion, students might be Challenges of this na tu re call for text-
asked to plat the role of an advice columnist. generation or text-manipulation-tvpe exercises.
Thev are to write a colum n and give advice to a As the passive is used m ore often in written than
classmate who is h a tin g a particular problem. in spoken English, teachers m ight give their stu­
Having students work with the same structure in dents a text-completion exercise in which the
writing and in speaking activities can highlight first few lines of the text are provided. For exam­
differences between written and oral grammars ple. from the first few lines in the following text,
Carter and McCarthv 1993). it should be clear to the students that the them e
Role plavs are useful for highlighting o ther of discourse is on the "issues,” not the agents (i.e.,
structural choices as well. Often we find that it is participants), at the town meeting.
neither the form no r the m eaning of the English
Town meetings were held th ro u g h o u t
tenses that presents the greatest long-term chal­
New E ngland vesterclav. Many issues
lenge to ESL EFL students: rather it is when win
were discussed, although the big one
to use one tense and not the other. In o ther
for m ost citizens was the issue of
words, it is the pragmatic usage of the tenses that
growth. Manv changes have been
is the major obstacle to their mastery. Giving stu­
m ade recentlv. For example, . . .
dents practice with situations in which a contrast
between two tenses is likelv to arise may sensitize Students then are asked to complete the text
students to the usage differences. For instance, a using the appropriate voice. As not all the sen­
notorious problem for ESL EFL students is to tences should be in the passive voice, students will
know when to use the present perfect versus be making choices, in keeping with a characteristic
when to use the past tense. A situation where a of practice actuaries designed to work on the use
d im e n sio n . T h e te a c h e r will give fee dback Providing Feedback
to the students on the appropriateness of their
choices. Providing learners with feedback, negative evi­
Before leaving ou r discnssion of the passive dence which thev can use to correct their misap­
voice, it would be useful to illustrate whv we feel prehensions about some aspect of the target
that identifying the challenging dim ension is a language, is an essential function of language
worthwhile step to take before teaching any teaching. Even such indirect feedback as asking a
g ram m ar structure. W hen we are clear where learner for clarification of something he or she
the challenge lies, the challenge can shape ou r has said mav be helpful (Schachter 1986). It has
lessons. For instance, as we stated earlier, it has always been a controversial function, however
b e e n ou r experience that the greatest long-term (Larsen-Freeman 1991). T here are, for instance,
challenge for students working on the passive those who would proscribe it, believing that a
voice is for them to figure out when to use the teacher's intervention will inhibit students from
passive. Keeping this in m in d will help us avoid a freely expressing themselves or that there is little
c om m on practice of ESL/EFL teachers, which is evidence dem onstrating that learners make use of
to introduce the passive as a transform ed version the feedback thev have been given — there is little
o f the active (e.g., "Switch the subject with the immediate "uptake" of the correct form. While
direct object . . ."). Presenting the passive in this there are clearlv times that such intervention can
way is misleading because it gives the impression be intrusive and therefore unwarranted (e.g., in
that the passive is simply a variant of the active. the middle of a small-group communicative activ­
Moreover, it suggests that most passive sentences ity). at o ther times focused feedback is highlv
contain agents. W hat we know in fact to be the desirable. Further, immediate uptake cannot be
case is that o ne voice is not a variant of the other, the sole criterion of its usefulness. Negative evi­
b u t ra th e r the two are in com plem entary distri­ dence gives students the feedback thev need to
bution, with their foci completelv different. We reject or modifv their hvpotheses about how the
also know that relativelv few passive sentences target language is form ed or functions. Students
contain explicit agents. Thus, from the first, the understand this, which explains whv thev often
passive should be taught as a distinct structure deliberatclv seek feedback.
which occurs in a different context from the The same pie chart that we tised when iden-
active. (See Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman tifving the lea rn in g challenge an d creating
1999, for several examples of how to do this.) practice activities can also be a useful aid in diag­
It should be noted that the pie chart, the nosing errors. W hen an error is com m itted by a
observations about learning, and the characteris­ student, a teacher can mentallv hold it up to the
tics of practice activities enum erated here mav not pie chart to determ ine if it is an error in form,
significantly alter the wav gram m ar is taught today. meaning, or use. O f course, sometimes the cause
Indeed, manv of the activities recom m ended here of an error is ambiguous. Still, the pie chart does
are currently being used. What these tools do offer, provide a frame of reference, and if the diagnosis
how-ever, is a principled means for dealing with is accurate, the remeclv mav be m ore effective.
grammar. Thev should help teachers to make clear More than once we hat e observed a teacher give
decisions they teach grammar. They should help an explanation of linguistic form to a student,
teachers to design effective activities or to choose w hen consulting the pie chart would have
from a m ong those in a textbook without assuming suggested that the student's confusion lav with
that just because a textbook activity deals with the the area of use instead.
target structure, it necessarily addresses the partic­ As for how the feedback is to be provided, w;e
ular learning challenge that their students are hate alreadv m entioned several useful options—
experiencing. recasting, for instance. Getting students to self-
This brings us to the close o f ou r discussion correct is an o th er (see Lyster and Ranta 1997).
on how to design practice activities for gram m ar Giving students an explicit rule is a third. Some
points. teachers like to collect their students' errors.
identifV the prototypical ones, and then deal period of time, but n o t bv following a prescribed
with th em collectively in class in an anonvmous sequence. Many structures would arise naturally
fashion. Which of these options is exercised will in the course of working on tasks a n d content and
de p e n d on the teacher’s style, the proficiency of would be dealt with then. O th e r structures m ight
the students, the nature of the error, and in which be introduced as the teacher determ ined that the
part of the lesson the error has been committed. students were ready to learn them. R ather than
N one o f these have to be used exclusively, adhering to a linear progression, the choice of
of course. For instance, Aljaafreh an d Lantolf sequence would be left up to the teacher and
(1994) offer a g raduated 12-point scale ranging would d e p e n d on the teacher’s assessment of the
from implicit to explicit strategies, beginning students' developmental readiness to learn.
with student identification of errors in their own Manv teachers, of course, have little control
writing, moving to where the teacher isolates the over the content or sequence o f what thev work
e rro r area a n d inquires if there is anything on. Thev must adhere to prescribed svllabi or
wrong in a particular sentence, to where the textbooks, although even in such a situation, it
teacher provides examples of the correct pattern mav be possible for teachers not to follow a
when o th e r forms of help fail to lead to a self­ sequence rigidly. But for those teachers who have
correction on the part o f the student. m ore flexibility, research on acquisition orders is
germ ane. Some SLA research has shown that
learners progress through a series of predictable
RELA TED P E D A G O G IC A L stages in their acquisition of particular linguistic
forms. O n e explanation for the o rd e r rests on
ISSUES the complexity of the speech-processing strate­
Sequencing gies required. Thus, all structures processable bv
a particular strategy o r cluster of strategies
Earlier we no ted that gram m ar structures are
should be acquired at roughly the same develop­
n o t acquired one at a time th ro u g h a process of
“agglutination” (R uth erford 1987). Rather, dif­ mental stage. This approach has been shown to
ferent aspects of form, m eaning, an d use of a account for certain acquisition orders in ESI.
given structure mat be acquired at different (Pienem ann and J o h n s to n 1987).
stages o f L2 developm ent. This observation con­ Despite these findings and their potential
firms the n e e d for recycling— i.e.. working on implications for grammatical structure sequenc­
one dim ension of a form and then re tu rn in g to ing. there has been no definitive acquisition
the form from time to time as the n e e d arises. order established, and thus teachers are still left
To some extent this will occur naturally, as the to their own resources for judgm ents on how to
same structures are likelv to be e n c o untered in proceed. We should also note that even if an
different communicative tasks and content areas. acquisition order were to be fullv specified for
However, it is also the case that not all linguistic English, there might be justification for preem pt­
structures that students need to learn will be avail­ ing the acquisition order when students’ c om m u­
able in the language that occurs in the classroom. nicative needs were not being m et a n d when,
T h e refo re, it will be necessary for the therefore, certain structures would need to be
teacher to "fill in the gaps,” i.e., to introduce taught, at least formulaicallv. F u rth e rm o re ,
structures that don't naturally arise in classroom Lightbown (1998) has suggested that even if stu­
discourse (Spada and Lightbown 1993). For this dents are asked to work on structures before they
reason, teachers might think in terms of a gram­ are readv to acquire them, such effort mav not be
mar checklist, rather than a grammatical sequence. in vain because such instruction might prim e sub­
By this, 1 m ean that it would be a teacher’s respon­ sequent noticing on the part of the students,
sibility to see that students learn certain gram ­ thereby accelerating acquisition when they are
matical items by the end of a given course or indeed readv.
Inductive Versus Deductive approach one is nurturing within the students a
Presentation way of thinking, through which thev can arrive at
their own generalizations. In addition, an induc­
An additional choice teachers face is w hether to tive approach allows teachers to assess what the
work inductively or deductively. An inductive students alreaclv know about a particular struc­
activity is one in which students infer the rule or ture and to make am necessarv adjustments in
generalization from a set of examples. In a deduc­ their lesson plan. Ulearlv. a teacher's anticipation
tive activitv, on the o ther hand, the students are of where the challenge lies is not alwav s borne out
given the rule and thev applv it to examples. For when he or she assesses students' actual behavior.
instance, when practicing an inductive approach O th e r times, when students have a particular
to the m ass/co u n t noun distinction in English, cognitive stvle that is not well suited for language
students could be presented with a language sam­ analvsis or when a particular linguistic rule is
ple, such as a grocerv advertising circular. Thev rather convoluted, it mav make more sense to
then would be encouraged to make their own present a gram m ar structure deductivelv.
observations about the form of mass and count In d e e d . C o rd e r's sensible observations
nouns. The teacher m ight listen to their observa­ offer comfort:
tions a n d th en m ight summarize bv generalizing
What little we know about . . . second
about the two categories of nouns. If practicing a
language learning . . . suggests that a
deductive approach, the teacher would present
com bination of induction and d e d u c ­
the generalization an d then ask students to applv
tion produces the best result. . . . The
it to the language sample.
old controversv about w hether one
As we see, if a teacher has chosen an induc­
should provide the rule first an d then
tive ap p ro a c h in a given lesson, a fu rth e r option
the examples, or vice versa, is now
exists— w h ether or not to give or have students
seen to be merelv a m atter of tactics to
articulate an explicit rule. Earlier, we stated that
which no categorical answer can be
given (('.order 1973 in R utherford and
equating the teaching of g ram m ar with the p ro ­
vision of explicit rules was an undulv limited S h a rv o o d Smith 1988. p. 133).
view of what it m eans to teach grammar. We said
this because what we are trving to bring about in
the lea rn er is linguistic behavior that conforms Patterns and Reasons, Not Rules
to the rules, not knowledge of the rules th em ­ Before concluding, we should make two final
selves. Having said this, we see no reason to observations about gram m ar teaching. With the
avoid giving explicit rules as a m eans to this end, increased access to large corpora of language
except perhaps if one is working with voting chil­ data that com puters afford, it has becom e clear
dren. Usually students request rules a n d re p o rt that grammatical structures an d lexical items
that they find them helpful. Moreover, stating a occur in a large n u m b e r of regularlv occurring
rule explicitlv can often bring ab o u t linguistic patterns (Sinclair and Fox 1990; Biber, Conrad,
insights in a m ore efficacious m anner, as long as and R eppen 1998). Not all lexical items can be
the rule is not oversimplified or so metalinguis- freelv substituted into a particular pattern. O nce
tically obtuse that students must struggle h a rd e r one lexical item is selected, the likelihood of a
to u n d e rsta n d the rule than to apply it implicitly particular item or phrase following is increased.
(Robinson 1996). For example, if the verb insist is chosen, either on
R e tu rn in g now to the inductive versus or that is verv likelv to follow. An implication of
deductive question, we again find that the choice corpus-based research is that teachers of gram ­
is not one resolvable with an e ith e r /o r approach. m ar should pav m ore attention to conventional­
T h e r e are m anv times w hen an inductive ized lexicogrammatical units, and not simply
approach such as using a consciousness-raising focus on teaching gram m atical rules (Pawley
task is desirable because by using such an a n d Svder 198.3; N attinger an d DcCarrico 1992;
Lewis 1997). Indeed, connectionist m odeling sions of g ram m ar a n d how to teach them , teach­
has d e m o n stra ted that m orphology (Ellis and ers will continue to develop their professional
Schmidt 1997) a n d syntax (MacWhinney 1997) knowledge base, which will, in turn, benefit their
acquisition mav be accounted Гог by simple asso­ students as thev strive to e n h a n ce their gram ­
ciative learning principles (X. Ellis 1998), rather matical proficiency.
than as a pro d u ct of rule application.
A nother challenge to equating the teach­
ing of rules with the teaching of g ram m ar comes D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S
from Larsen-Freem an’s (2000a) suggestion that 1. T h in k of all the language tea c h in g a p ­
teachers concentrate on teaching “reasons, not proaches with which vou are familiar. Can
rules." Larsen-Freeman points out that although you categorize them according to w hether
rules d o n 't allow for change, language is chang­ thev favor language form or language use?
ing all the time. A consequence is that most rules 2. In explaining the pragm atics of phrasal
have "exceptions." F u rth e rm o re , m anv rules verbs, the p rin c ip le o f d o m in a n c e was
a ppear arbitrary because thev are form based, invoked. Explain whv the principle of d om i­
ignoring the m ea n in g and use dimensions. For nance falls in the pragmatic dimension.
instance, rather than telling students thev must 3. T he effect of the native language on second
use an indefinite n o u n phrase after the verb in a language learning has traditionally b e e n
sentence beginning with existential there. seen to be one of interference. How does
There is a snowstorm coming. observation 3 on the le a r n in g process
(pp. 255-256) differ in its perception of
help them und e rsta n d the reason: there intro­ LI influence?
duces new inform ation in the n o u n following 4. Whv was it stressed that the repetition in a
the verb, a n d in English, new inform ation is practice activity for working on form should
m arked with indefinite determ iners. This reason be meaningful?
is b road based a n d explains a n u m b e r of English 5. Whv is it im p o rtan t to identify the challenge
word-order p h e n o m e n a . While rules provide in a particular gram m ar structure for a p a r­
some security for learners, reasons give them a ticular group of students, even if the aspect
d e e p er u n d e rsta n d in g of the logic of English of structure vou are planning to teach lies in
and help them m ake it their own. Besides, rea­ a different wedge of the pie from where the
sons are m ea n in g based and use based and are challenge lies?
in keeping with the m ore robust view of gram ­
mar we have been pro m o tin g in this chapter.
S U G G E S T E D A C T IV IT IE S
1. T hink of a language teaching a p p ro a c h
P R O FE SSIO N A L D EV E LO P M E N T which tends to favor language use over lan­
Finally, the form, m eaning, a n d fram ework can guage form. How could the a pproach incor­
be used bv teachers to assess where there are porate m ore language form? Now think of
gaps in their own knowledge o f English gram ­ an a p p ro a c h that favors lan guage form
mar. W hen thev can't fill in all the wedges in the over language use. How could a focus on
pie chart for a given structure, thev can consult language use be integrated?
reference gram m ars. O f course, there are manv 2. Analyze restrictive relative clauses in terms
gaps in what is known about the three dim e n ­ of the three dim ensions o f the pie chart.
sions. In particular, there is m uch to learn about What has been the most challenging d im e n ­
the pragm atic conditions governing the use of sion for the students with whom vou have
particular structures. For this reason, the pie worked?
chart can also be used to generate items for a 3. Design practice activities for dealing with the
research agenda. Bv exploring the three dim e n ­ pragmatics of the following:
 a. falling versus rising intonation in tag ENDNO TES
questions 1 S o m e t i m e a f t e r 1 h a d b e g u n view g r a m m a r in this
b. indirect object alternation way, t h e w o r k o f C h a r l e s M o r r is (1 9 8 9 ) was b r o u g h t
c. presence or absence of existential there to m y a t t e n t i o n . A l t h o u g h h e uses t h e t e r m s in a
s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t m a n n e r . M o r r is a p p li e s t h e t e r ­
n a r y s c h e m e o f syntactics, s e m a n ti c s , a n d p r a g m a t ­
ics in p o r t r a v i n g t h e field o f s e m io tic s o r t h e s t u d v
^ ^ FU R T H ER R EA D IN G o f signs. T h e t e r n a r y s c h e m e w e a r e a d o p t i n g h e r e
B y g ate, M., A. T o n k v n . a n d E. W illiam s , eels. 1994. m as also s o u n d r e m i n i s c e n t o f K e n n e t h P i k e ’s
Grammar and the Language Teacher. H c m e l "p a r tic le , wave a n d h e l d " (1 9 5 9 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e r e is
H e m p s t e a d . UK: P r e n t i c e H a ll I n t e r n a t i o n a l . s o m e o v e rla p , t h e r e is n o i s o m o r p h i s m b e t w e e n t h e
O f f e r s wavs t h a t g r a m m a r in l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g m o d e ls .
c a n b e r e a f f i r m e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d in o r d e r to - F o r e x a m p le , th e m o d e l o f la n g u a g e th a t d e sc rip ­
a v o id t h e p e n d u l u m swing. tive li n g u is ts p r e f e r is o n e in w h i c h v a r i o u s a r e a s o f
C e lc e - M u r c i a , M.. a n d S. H ille s. 1988. Technique.', and l a n g u a g e a r e d e p i c t e d as s t r a t a in a li n g u is ti c h i e r ­
Resources in Teaching Grammar. N e w York: O x f o r d a r c h y b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e s o u n d s o f l a n g u a g e as
U n iv e r s itv Press. t h e lo w est level f r o m w h i c h all e ls e is c o m p o s e d
D iscu sses issues g e r m a n e to t e a c h i n g g r a m m a r a n d f o l lo w in g in t u r n w ith m o r p h e m e s , le x i c o n ,
a n d provides a b u n d a n t e x a m p le s o f te c h n iq u e s s v n ta x . a n d d i s c o u r s e .
a n d m aterials ap p lied to te a c h in g E nglish ■’ We i n c l u d e lexis h e r e , a c k n o w le d g i n g ; t h a t g r a m -
structures. m a r a n d lexis a r e ju s t tw o p o l e s o n a c o n t i n u u m
Celce-Murcia. M.. and D. Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The a n d th a t t h e r e a r e m a n v p a t t e r n e d m u l t i w o r d
Grammar Book: An ESE/EEF Teacher's C.tnnsc. 2d p h r a s e s t h a t a r e b asic i n t e r m e d i a t e u n i t s b e t w e e n
eel. B o s t o n . MA: Heinle К Ileinle. lexis a n d g r a m m a r . F o l l o w i n g H a lli d a v (1 9 9 4 ) ,
S e e k s to g u i d e t e a c h e r s to a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e n , it is p r o b a b l e m o r e a c c u r a t e to t h i n k in t e r m s
t h e g r a m m a r o f t h o s e s t r u c t u r e s then will h a v e о f " 1e x i с о g r a m m a r."
to t e a c h ( t h e i r f o r m , m e a n i n g , a n d u se in c o n ­ 1 F o r m o r e e x c e p t i o n s to th is r u l e , c o n s u l t C e lc e -
te x t ) a n d o ff e rs r e l e v a n t t e a c h i n g s u g g e s t i o n s M u r c i a a n d L .a r s e n - F r e e m a n (1 9 9 9 . p p . 3 1 4 - 3 1 6 ) .
fo r th o s e sa m e stru ctu res. ■' F o r this r e a s o n . R u t h e r f o r d h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t a n
D o u g h t v , C.. a n d J . W illia m s , ed s. 1998. Em us on Form o p t i m a l a p p r o a c h to d e a l i n g w ith t h e n o n l i n e a r i t y
in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. o f g ra m m a tic a l acq u isitio n m ig h t be o n e w h ere
C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n iv e r s ity Press. t e a c h e r s h e l p s t u d e n t s a c h ie v e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g
P ro v i d e s a n o v e rv ie w o f s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i ­ of g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f g r a m m a r , e.g.. h o w to
s i ti o n r e s e a r c h t h a t h a s in v e s t i g a t e d "f o c u s o n m o d i f y b asic w o r d o r d e r , r a t h e r t h a n c o n c e n t r a t ­
f o r m ." in g o n t e a c h i n g s t r u c t u r e - s p e c i f i c ru le s.
Teaching Language: From
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D. 2 0 0 1 . h S u c h <i r e s t r i c t i o n m i g h t s e e m u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y
Grammar to Grammaring. B o s t o n . MA: H e i n l e &: a u t o c r a t i c in t o d a y 's c li m a t e , w h e r e o n e o f t h e fe a ­
H e in le . t u r e ' o f t h e C o m m u n i c a t i v e A p p r o a c h is t h a t s t u ­
A rgues for a re c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n o f g ra m m a r d e n t s b e g iv e n a c h o i c e o f h o w t h e v wish to e x p r e s s
a n d t h e wav it is t a u g h t , f e a t u r i n g g r a m m a r as a t h e m s e l v e s . It is o u r c o n t e n t i o n , h o w e v e r, t h a t s t u ­
c o m p l e x , n o n l i n e a r , d y n a m i c system . d e n t s h a v e a t r u e c h o i c e o n ly if thev h a v e a variety
R u t h e r f o r d . W. 1987. Second Language Grammar: o f li n g u is ti c f o r m s at t h e i r d is p o s a l w h i c h t h e v c a n
Learning and Teaching. L o n d o n : L o n g m a n . p r o d u c e a c c u ra t e ly . W i t h o u t b e i n g r e s t r i c t e d to
T r e a t s g r a m m a r in a n i n t e r e s t i n g a n d p r o v o c a ­ u sin g a p a rtic u la r ta rg e t fo rm d u r in g a form -
tive w av t h a t c h a l l e n g e s t h e view t h a t l e a r n i n g lo t u s e d a c tiv ity s t u d e n t s will o f t e n a v o id p r o d u c ­
g r a m m a r is a n “a c c u m u l a t i o n o f e n ti ti e s ." in g t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d , h e n c e , n e v e r h a v e a n
LTr, P. 1988. Grammar Practice Activities: A Practical Gaide o p p o r t u n i t y to tr u ly l e a r n it.
for Teachers. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University' ' A n O S re la tiv e c la u s e is o n e in w h ic h t h e s u b j e c t of
Press. t h e e m b e d d e d s e n t e n c e is r e p l a c e d bv a relative
D is c u s s e s p e d a g o g i c a l is su es f o l l o w e d lw a n u m ­ p r o n o u n b e c a u s e t h e s u b je c t is id e n t ic a l to a n o b ject
b e r o f g r a m m a r t e a c h i n g activ ities g r o u p e d o r o b je c tlik e n o u n in t h e p r e d i c a t e o f t h e p r e c e d i n g
a c c o r d i n g to t h e g r a m m a r s t r u c t u r e for w h ic h m a i n clause. ( F o r e x a m p l e : I like t h e b o o k t h a t h e
t h e v w o r k b est. w ro te .) ° s