Rod Ellis - Current Issues in Teaching Grammar and SLA Perspective PDF [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective Author(s): Rod Ellis Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Mar., 2006), pp. 83-107 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264512 . Accessed: 28/09/2013 12:25 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CurrentIssues in theTeachingof Grammar:An SLA Perspective ROD ELLIS University ofAuckland Auckland,New Zealand

The studyofhowlearnersacquirea secondlanguage(SLA) has helped to shape thinkingabout how to teach the grammarof a second issues. language.There remain,however,a numberof controversial Thispaperconsiderseightkeyquestionsrelatingto grammarpedagogy in the lightof findingsfromSLA. As such, thisarticlecomplements Celce-Murcia's (1991) articleon grammarteachingin the25thanniverTESOL whichconsideredtheroleofgrammarin issue of Quarterly, sary on a linguistic curriculumand drewpredominantly a communicative theoryof grammar.These eightquestionsaddresswhethergrammar should be taughtand ifso whatgrammar, when,and how.Although solutionsto thesequestions,itservesthe SLA does notafforddefinitive thisaspectof languagepedagogy. valuablepurposeof problematising This article concludes with a statementof my own beliefsabout of SLA. grammarteaching,groundedin myownunderstanding articleidentifiesand discusses a number of keyissues relatingto the teaching of grammarin a second language (L2) and, bydrawing on theoryand research in SLA, suggestswaysto address these problems. It points to a number of alternativesolutions to each problem, indicating thatmore oftenthan not there are no clear solutions currentlyavailable. The aim, therefore,is not to identifynew solutions to existingcontroversies, nor even to present new controversies.Rather it addresses within the compass of a single articlea whole range of issues related to grammar teaching,problematisesthese issues,and byso doing, providesa counterweight to the advocacy of specific,but also quite limited,proposals for teaching grammarthat have originated in some SLA quarters. However, I conclude witha statementof myown position on these issues. The questions thatwill be addressed are 1. Should we teach grammar,or should we simplycreate the conditions by which learners learn naturally? 2. What grammarshould we teach? TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 40, No. 1, March2006

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

83

3. Whenshouldwe teachgrammar?Is it bestto teachgrammarwhen learnersfirststartto learnan L2 or to waituntillaterwhenlearners havealreadyacquiredsome linguistic competence? 4. Should grammarinstruction be massed (i.e., the availableteaching timebe concentratedinto a shortperiod) or distributed(i.e., the availableteachingtimespreadovera longerperiod)? 5. Should grammarinstruction be intensive(e.g., covera singlegramin a singlelesson) or extensive(e.g., covermany maticalstructure in a singlelesson)? structures grammatical 6. Is thereanyvalue in teachingexplicitgrammatical knowledge? 7. Is therea bestwayto teachgrammarforimplicitknowledge? 8. Should grammarbe taughtin separatelessonsor integratedinto communicative activities?

DEFINING GRAMMARTEACHING Traditionally, grammarteachingis viewedas the presentationand of structures. Thisis theviewpromulgated discrete practice grammatical in teacherhandbooks.Ur (1996), for example,in her chaptertitled and explaininggram"TeachingGrammar"has sectionson "presenting in her chapter mar"and "grammarpracticeactivities." (2000) Hedge titled"Grammar"similarlyonly considers"presentinggrammar"and "practisinggrammar."This constitutesan overlynarrowdefinitionof truethatgrammarteachingcanconsist grammarteaching.It is certainly of the presentationand practiceof grammaticalitems.But, as will becomeapparent,itneed not.First,somegrammarlessonsmightconsist of presentation byitself(i.e., withoutanypractice),whileothersmight entailonlypractice(i.e., no presentation).Second, grammarteaching can involvelearnersin discoveringgrammaticalrules for themselves and no practice).Third,grammarteachingcan be (i.e., no presentation conductedsimplyby exposinglearnersto inputcontrivedto provide multipleexemplarsof the targetstructure.Here, too, there is no and no practice,at leastin thesenseofelicitingproduction presentation of thestructure. Finally, grammarteachingcan be conductedbymeans ofcorrective feedbackon learnererrorswhenthesearisein thecontext of performing some communicative task.The definitionof grammar is that informs this article a broad one: teaching Grammarteachinginvolves any instructionaltechnique that draws learners' attentionto some specificgrammaticalformin such a waythatit helps them eitherto understand it metalinguistically and/or process it in comprehension and/or production so that theycan internalize it. 84

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SHOULD WE TEACH GRAMMAR? This questionwas motivatedby earlyresearchinto naturalistic L2 acquisition,whichshowed thatlearnersappeared to followa natural orderand sequence of acquisition(i.e., theymastereddifferent gramin a relatively fixedand universalorder and they maticalstructures passedthrougha sequenceofstagesofacquisitionon routeto mastering This led researchers likeCorder(1967) to each grammatical structure). suggestthatlearnershad theirown built-insyllabusforlearninggrammar.In line withthis,Krashen(1981) arguedthatgrammarinstruction played no role in acquisition,a view based on the convictionthat learners(includingclassroomlearners)would automatically proceed along theirbuilt-insyllabusas long as theyhad access to comprehensible motivated.Grammarinstruction could coninputand weresufficiently tributeto learningbut thiswas of limitedvalue because communicative abilitywasdependenton acquisition. There followeda number of empiricalstudies designed to (a) and naturalistic learners comparethe orderof acquisitionof instructed and naturalistic (e.g.,Pica, 1983), (b) comparethesuccessofinstructed learners (Long, 1983) and (c) examine whetherattemptsto teach structures resultedin theiracquisition(e.g.,White, specificgrammatical & Ranta,1991). These studiesshowedthat,by and Spada, Lightbown, and naturalislarge,theorderofacquisitionwasthesameforinstructed tic learners(althoughtherewere some interesting that differences1), instructedlearnersgenerallyachieved higher levels of grammatical competence than naturalisticlearnersand that instructionwas no guaranteethatlearnerswouldacquirewhattheyhad been taught.These resultswere interpreted as showingthatthe acquisitionalprocessesof instructed and naturalistic learningwere the same but thatinstructed learnersprogressedmore rapidlyand achievedhigherlevelsof proficiency.Thus, some researchersconcluded (e.g., Long, 1988) that wasbeneficialbutthatto be effective teachinggrammar grammarhad to be taughtin a waythatwas compatiblewiththe naturalprocessesof acquisition. Subsequent research,such as Noms and Ortega's (2000) metaofgrammar analysisof49 studies,has borneout theoveralleffectiveness thereis evidencethat,contrary to Krashen's(1993) teaching.Further, contributesto both acquired knowledge continuedclaims,instruction (see Ellis,2002a) as wellas learnedknowledge.There is also increasing 1For example, Pica (1983) notes that some structures(e.g., plural-s) were used more accuratelyby instructedlearnersand some (e.g., Verb-ing) by naturalisticlearners.In other structures(e.g., articles)therewas no difference. CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

85

evidencethatnaturalistic learningin the classroom(as, e.g., in immersionprogrammes)does nottypically resultin highlevelsofgrammatical In competence(Genesee,1987). short,thereis nowconvincingindirect and directevidenceto supportthe teachingof grammar.Nevertheless, doubtsremainabout the natureof the researchevidence.Manystudies (includingmost of those reviewedby Norrisand Ortega) measure constructed (e.g.,fillin theblanks, learningin termsofconstrained responses sentencejoining,or sentencetransformation), whichcan be expectedto favourgrammarteaching.Thereis onlymixedevidencethatinstruction resultsin learningwhen it is measured by means of freeconstructed (e.g., communicativetasks). Also, it remainsthe case that responses learnersdo not alwaysacquirewhattheyhave been taughtand thatfor it needs to take account of how to be effective grammarinstruction learnersdeveloptheirinterlanguages. Aswe willsee, thereis controversy both how interlanguage developmentoccursand howinstrucregarding tioncan facilitate this.

WHAT GRAMMAR SHOULD

WE TEACH?

tointerlanguage then,thatgrammar Assuming, teachingcan contribute development,the next logical question concernswhat grammarwe should teach. This question can be broken down into two separate questions: 1. Whatkindof grammarshouldwe base teachingon? featuresshouldwe teach? 2. Whichgrammatical models to choose Linguisticsaffordsa broad selectionof grammatical structural from,including grammars, generativegrammars(based on a of universal and functional , grammars.Traditionally theory grammar) syllabuseshave been based on structuralor descriptivegrammars. Structural syllabusestraditionally emphasisedthe teachingofformover grammeaning(e.g., Lado, 1970). Though the influenceof structural marsis stillapparenttoday,modernsyllabusesrightly givemore attention to the functionsperformedby grammaticalforms.Thus, for example,lessemphasisis placedon suchaspectsofgrammaras sentence patternsor tense paradigmsand more on the meaningsconveyedby Some attemptwasonce different formsin communication. grammatical made to exploitthe insightsto be gleaned fromgenerativetheoriesof grammar(see, e.g.,Bright,1965), butin general,syllabusdesignersand to rely teachershave not foundsuch modelsusefuland have preferred on modern descriptivegrammars,such as Celce-Murciaand Larsen86

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book.This resourceis especiallyvaluable Freeman's (1999) Grammar because it not onlyprovidesa comprehensive, clear,and pedagogically of but thekinds exploitabledescription Englishgrammar also identifies oferrorsthatL2 learnersare knownto makewithdifferent grammatical is importantbecause it helps to identify Such information structures. which structuresand which aspects of a structurerequire special Bookis also ideal in thatit presentsinformation attention. The Grammar formbutalso aboutthesemanticand discoursal notonlyaboutlinguistic realised Williams,and Rott byparticularforms.As VanPatten, meanings form connections between and meaning (2004) emphasise,establishing is a fundamentalaspect of language acquisition.Thus, any reference connectionsof the grammarthatfailsto describethe form-meaning In must be necessarily inadequate. general,then,the targetlanguage choice ofwhichtypeof grammarto use as a basisforteachingis not a grammarsthatdetailtheformdescriptive majorsourceof controversy; of the are ascendant. language meaningrelationships to teach is In contrast,the choice of whichgrammaticalstructures and variouspositions Twopolarpositionscan be identified controversial. in between.At one end of this continuumis Krashen'sminimalist position.Krashen (1982) argues that grammarteachingshould be limitedto a fewsimpleand portablerulessuchas 3rdperson-jand past tense-£d thatcan be used to monitoroutputfromthe acquiredsystem. He bases hisargumenton theclaimthatmostlearnersare onlycapable of learningsuch simplerules- thatmore complexrulesare generally notlearnableor,iftheyare,are beyondstudents'abilityto applythrough Krashen'sclaim,however,is not warranted.There is now monitoring. thatmanylearnersare capable of masteringa wide evidence ample of range explicitgrammarrules.Greenand Hecht (1992), forexample, studentsof Englishin Germanywereable to foundthatuniversity-level errorstheywere clear explanationsfor85% ofthegrammatical produce askedto explain,whileoverallthelearnersin theirstudy(whoincluded explanationsfor46% secondaryschool students)managedsatisfactory of the errors.Macroryand Stone (2000) reportedthatBritishcompreof the hensiveschool studentshad a fairly good explicitunderstanding its in French understood tense function,theyknew (e.g., they perfect thatsome verbsused avoirand some être,theywere familiarwiththe formsrequiredbydifferent pronouns,and theywereawareof theneed fora finalaccent on the past participle).Hu (2002) foundthatadult correctmetalinguistic knowlChineselearnersof Englishdemonstrated of six the rules structures for definite of (e.g., English edge prototypical constitutedthe prototypical articlespecific rule) but were less reference . clearabouttheperipheralrulesforthesestructures (e.g.,generic reference) Teach the whole of At the otherpole is the comprehensive position: CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

87

the grammarof the targetlanguage.2This is the positionadopted by manycourse book writers(e.g., Walter& Swan, 1990) or authorsof 1994). Such a positionwould grammarpracticematerials(e.g.,Murphy, also seemunwarranted becauselearnersare clearlycapableoflearninga substantial amountof the L2 grammarwithoutinstruction and because mostteachingcontextshavelimitedtimeavailableforteachinggrammar so some selectionis needed. What then should selectionbe based on? The answerwould seem obvious- theinherentlearningdifficulty strucofdifferent grammatical tures.The problemarisesin how to determinethis.To beginwith,it is to distinguish Thiscan twodifferent sensesof learning necessary difficulty. referto (a) thedifficulty a grammatical learnershavein understanding featureand (b) to thedifficulty a grammatical theyhavein internalising in communication. These featureso thattheyare able to use itaccurately twosensesrelateto thedistinction betweenlearninggrammaras explicit knowledgeand as implicitknowledge,whichis discussedlater.Clearly, whatis difficult to learnas explicitknowledgeand as implicitknowledge in grasping is notthesame.Forexample,mostlearnershaveno difficulty in theruleforEnglishthirdperson-sbuttheyhaveenormousdifficulty These two senses this structure so can use it accurately. internalising they of learningdifficulty have not alwaysbeen clearlydistinguishedin languagepedagogy,withtheresultthatevenwhenthestatedgoal is the developmentof implicitknowledge,it is the anticipateddifficulty studentswillhave in understanding a featurethatguidesthe selection and gradingof grammatical structures. Thirdperson-5,forexample,is in a course. typically taughtveryearly How then has learning difficulty been established?Traditionally, in theinputand their factorssuchas thefrequency ofspecificstructures to learners have invoked been utility (Mackey,1976), but thesefactors wouldseem to have more to do withuse3thanwithinherentcognitive Here I considertwoapproachesthathavefiguredin attempts difficulty. to delineatecognitivedifficulty. 1. Teach thoseformsthatdiffer fromthelearners'firstlanguage(LI). 2. Teach markedratherthanunmarkedforms. 2 Of course, it is not possible to specifythe whole grammarof a language. Though the grammarof a language maybe determinate,descriptionsof it are certainlynot. The Longman A Grammar ofContemporary English(Quirk, Greenbaum,Leech, 8c Svartvik,1972) ran to 1081 pages (excluding index and bibliography)but doubtlesslydoes not account forall the known factsof Englishgrammar.Nevertheless,thereis a recognizedcanon of Englishstructuresthat, in the eyesof syllabusdesignersand textbookwriters, constitutesthe grammarof English. 3Structureslike Englisharticlesthatare veryfrequentin the inputcan imposeconsiderable Structuressuch as Englishconditionalsmaybe veryusefulto learnersbutare learningdifficulty. to learn. also difficult 88

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The firstapproach was, of course,the one adopted in manyearly structural coursesbased on a contrastive analysisofthelearner'sLI and the targetlanguage. Althoughthe contrastiveanalysishypothesisas is clearlynottenable(see Ellis,1985,chapter2), SLA formulated initially at leastsomeofthe stillgenerally researchers agreethatlearnerstransfer featuresof theirLI into the L2. For example,thereis ample evidence (Trahey& White,1993) to showthatFrenchlearnersofEnglishproduce errorsofthekindMarykissed JohnbecauseFrenchpermitsan passionately adverb to be positioned between the verb and the direct object. contrastive Nevertheless, analysisdoes not constitutea sound basis for In manyteachingcontexts,the learnstructures. selectinggrammatical ers come frommixedlanguagebackgroundswhereit wouldbe impossibleto use contrastive analysisto tailorgrammarteachingto theentire Lis. Also,we simplydo notyet havedifferent learners the because group does and does not translateinto knowenough about whendifference arises even and in some cases, learningdifficulty learningdifficulty, wherethereis no difference. has The second approach,however,is also problematic.Markedness been definedin termsof whethera grammaticalstructureis in some sensefrequent, unnatural,and deviant natural,and basicor infrequent, froma regularpattern(Richards,Platt,& Weber,1985). Thus,theuse of as in He mademefollowhimcan be withouttofollowing an infinitive make, consideredmarkedbecause makeis one the fewverbsin Englishthat takes this kind of complementand because thispatternoccurs only The general idea is that we should teach the marked infrequently. featuresand leavethelearnersto learntheunmarkedformsnaturally by The problemis that,as thedefinition themselves. suggests,markedness to apply remainsa somewhatopaque concept,so thatitis oftendifficult to teach. withthe precisionneeded to determinewhichstructures The selectionof grammatical content,then,remainsveryproblematic.One solutionto thekindsof problemsI havementionedis to base selectionon theknownerrorsproducedbylearners.In thisrespect,lists ofcommonlearnererrorssuchas thoseavailableinTurtonand Heaton's Errorsand Swan and Smith's (2001) (1996) LongmanDictionary ofCommon and OtherProblemsare LearnerEnglish: A TeachersGuide to Interference

helpful. The problemsof selectionprobablyexplain whygrammaticalsyllabusesare so similarand havechangedso littleovertheyears;itis saferto followwhathas been done before.Of course the selectionof whatto teach will also depend on the learner'sstage of development.The involveare discussedin problemsthatthelearner'sstageofdevelopment sections. subsequent

CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

89

WHEN SHOULD WE TEACH GRAMMAR? to the Thereare twocompeting answers to thisquestion. According itisbesttoemphasise intheearlystagesof theteaching ofgrammar first, tothesecond,itisbesttoemphasise L2 acquisition. meaningAccording focused instruction tobeginwithandintroduce later, teaching grammar I will whenlearnershavealreadybegunto formtheirinterlanguages. forbothpositions. considerthearguments briefly A keypremiseof behaviourist theories oflanguagelearningis that "errorlikesin needsto be avoidedat all costs"(Brooks,1960).This holdsthatoncelearners haveformed incorrect habits, theywill premise havedifficulty themandreplacing themwithcorrect habits. eradicating habitsinthe toensurethatlearners Thus,itisnecessary developcorrect first method oftheaudiolingual place.Thiswasone ofthekeypremises ofbeginning canbe advancedinfavour (Lado,1964).Otherarguments to teachgrammar to a form-focused early.The alternative approach as in task-based language emphasises meaningand messagecreation, believethatbeginning-level (Skehan,1998),butmanyteachers teaching learners activities becausetheylack cannotengagein meaning-centred the necessary of the L2 to perform tasks.Thus,a formknowledge focusedapproachis neededinitially a basisofknowledge to construct thatlearners can thenuse and extendin a meaning-focused approach. current theoriesof L2 learning, whichgivepriconnectionist Finally, exposureto the macyto implicit learningprocessesbasedon massive a basisforteaching tobeginners. alsoprovide target grammar language, with N. Ellis(2005) hassuggested commences thatlearning necessarily an explicit oflinguistic whicharethendeveloped forms, representation He suggests thatteaching earlyis through grammar implicit learning. thatfollows. This a basisforthereallearning valuablebecauseitprovides towhichgramseemstoechoLightbown's (1991)metaphor, according learners with"hooks" marinstruction facilitates learningbyproviding is thata whichtheycan grabon to. The idea behindthismetaphor of howgrammatical features workfacilitates consciousunderstanding thekindofprocessing to linguistic form)requiredfor (e.g.,attention truecompetence. developing The argumentagainstteachinggrammarearlyon derivesfrom research on immersion (e.g.,Genesee,1987),whichshows programmes thatlearnersin suchprogrammes are able to developtheproficiency in the neededforfluent instruction communication without anyformal ofL2 Spanishdo notneedto be taughtthat L2. Forexample,learners follownounsin thislanguage;theyseemto be able to learn adjectives thisnaturalistically fromexposureto communicative input(Hughes, clauses learners ofL2 English canmaster 1979).Similarly, simplerelative 90

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(e.g., clauseswherethe relativepronounfunctionsas subjectand the theverb). There is ample clause is attachedto a noun phrasefollowing evidenceto showthatlearnerscan and do learna good deal ofgrammar withoutbeingtaughtit.This beingso, whybotherto teachwhatcan be A second reasonfordelayinggrammarteachingto learned naturally? later stages of developmentis that early interlanguageis typically agrammatical(Ellis,1984; Perdue & Klein,1993). That is, learnersrely utterances on a memory-based systemoflexicalsequences,constructing either by accessing ready-madechunks or by simplyconcatenating lexical itemsinto simplestrings.Ellis (1984) givesexamplesof such utterancesin the earlyspeech of threeclassroomlearners: Me no (= I don'thaveanycrayons) Me milkman (= I wantto be themilkman) Dinnertime youout(= It is dinnertimeso youhaveto go out)

Such pidginisedutterancesrelyheavilyon contextand the use of in simple,contextcommunicationstrategies.They are veryeffective itis thislexicalisedknowledgethat embeddedcommunication. Arguably, providesthe basisforthe subsequentdevelopmentof the grammatical communication.This, then,is a competenceneeded for context-free strongargumentfordelayingthe teachingof grammaruntillearners havedevelopeda basic communicative ability. In general,I have favouredthe second of thesepositions(see Ellis, 2002b). Giventhatmanyclassroomlearnerswillnotprogressbeyondthe initialstagesof language learning,it seems to me that a task-based approach thatcatersto the developmentof a proceduralisedlexical structures willensure and simple,naturally acquiredgrammatical system is tobe preferred to an communicative a threshold and,therefore, ability as from the start and on that insists that, accuracy grammatical approach a consequence,mayimpede the developmentof thiscommunicative Task-based languageteachingis possiblewithcompletebeginners ability. ifthefirst tasksemphasiselistening(and perhapsreading)and allowfor nonverbalresponses.However,it is possiblethatsuch an approachcan be usefullycomplementedwithone thatdrawsbeginners'attentionto features(e.g., past tense-^din English) that some usefulgrammatical instruction miss. This is the aim of input-processing otherwise theymight (VanPatten,1996,2003), whichis discussedlater.

CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

91

SHOULD GRAMMARTEACHING BE MASSED OR DISTRIBUTED? Thisquestion That islogically ofthepreceding independent question. of whengrammar we need to is, irrespective commences, teaching consider whether itshouldbe concentrated intoa shortperiodoftime hasaddressed orspreadovera longerperiod.Remarkably littleresearch thisquestion. on therelative effects The research thathasbeenundertaken reports of massedand distributed on instruction language generallanguage rather thantheeffects on grammar Collins, Halter, proficiency learning. as follows: & the available research summarise Lightbown,Spada(1999) None of thelanguageprogramevaluationresearchhas foundan advantage fordistributed Althoughthe findingsthusfarlead to languageinstruction. thehypothesis thatmoreconcentrated exposuretoEnglishmaylead tobetter studentoutcomes,theevidenceis not conclusive,(p. 659)

ESL Collinsandcolleagues thenreport theirownstudy ofthreeintensive over in one distributed (the taught programmes Canada, programme) thefull10 monthsof one schoolyear,one (themassedprogramme) concentrated into5 months buttaught onlyto aboveaveragestudents, andthethird(themassedplusprogramme) into5 months, concentrated to use with out of class supplemented opportunities Englishand taught wasthatthemassed tostudents ofmixedability levels.Themainfinding thedistributed and especially themassed-plus students outperformed of students on most of the measures including learning, programme somemeasuresof grammatical mightin ability, althoughthisfinding provided partbe explainedbythefactthatthemassedprogrammes moreoverallinstructional time. Collinsetal.'s study research, especially pointstotheneedforfurther instruction distudiesthatcomparemassedand distributed through structures. rectedat specificgrammatical Ideallysucha studywould in a particular structure spread compareshortperiodsof instruction into overseveraldayswiththesameamountofinstruction compressed one or twolessons.4 Receivedwisdomis thata cyclicalapproachto becauseitallowsfor 1974)istobe preferred (Howatt, grammar teaching withwhat thatis compatible thekindofgradualacquisition ofgrammar the is knownaboutinterlanguage However, resultsof development. 4Giventhe ofentire in evaluations extraneous variables thatarisein controlling problems studiesofmassedanddistributed itmight programmes, provemucheasiertoconductrigorous structures. whenthesearefocusedon specific learning grammatical 92

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Collinset al.'s studysuggest,at theveryleast,thatsucha positionneeds to be investigatedempirically. Here, then, is an issue about which said at can be the moment. definitive nothing

SHOULD GRAMMARTEACHING BE INTENSIVE OR EXTENSIVE? refersto instruction overa sustainedperiod Intensive teaching grammar of time(whichcould be a lessonor a seriesof lessonscoveringdaysor structure or,perhaps,a pairof weeks)concerninga singlegrammatical contrastedstructures(e.g., Englishpast continuousvs. past simple). refersto instruction Extensive concerninga wholerange teaching grammar withina shortperiod of time(e.g., a lesson) so thateach of structures structurereceivesonlyminimalattentionin any one lesson. It is the difference betweenshootinga pistolrepeatedlyat the same targetand oftargets.Instruction can be a firing shotgunto spraypelletsat a variety ofwhetherit is massedor distributed. or extensiveirrespective intensive distinctionrefersto how a whole grammar The massed-distributed distinctionrefersto course is staged, while the intensive-extensive whethereach singlelesson addressesa singleor multiplegrammatical feature (s). viewedas entailingintensiveinstrucGrammarteachingis typically tion.The present-practise-produce (PPP) model of grammarteaching, which underlies most discussionsof grammarteaching in teacher focus handbooks(see, e.g.,Hedge,2000;Ur,1996),assumesan intensive discussions such acknowlstructures. on specificgrammatical Although edge thatlearners'readinessto acquire a specificstructurelimitsthe itis), theyalso assume ofteaching(no matterhowintensive effectiveness learners will eventually for thatwithsufficient opportunities practice, As are the structures succeed in automatising they taught. Ur says,"the so aim of grammarpracticeis to get studentsto learn the structures on them their will be able to that correctly produce thoroughly they own" (p. 83). Thus, the idea thatpractisemakesperfectis the primary forthe intensiveapproach.Practise, however,mustinvolve justification in to practicethetargetstructure bothdrillsand tasks(i.e.,opportunities . a communicative context) It is perhapsless easy to see how grammarteachingcan comprise A teacherwouldprobablynotelectto presentand extensiveinstruction. withina singlelesson. structures a whole rangeof grammatical practise has alwayshad a place ofa kind,however, Extensivegrammarinstruction in grammarteaching.Some 30 yearsago, whileteachingin a secondary school in Zambia, I regularlygave lessons where I illustratedand CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

93

explainedsome of the commonerrorsthatI had observedmystudents in the contextof taskmakingin theirwrittencompositions.Similarly, based teaching,some teachershave been observedto note the errors thatlearnersmake and then to address themwhen the taskis over (Basturkmen,Loewen, & Ellis, 2004). However,extensivegrammar a learningactivity, notjust as some kind of teachingcan occur within in the contextof both Teachers corrective feedback postscript. provide form-focused and meaning-focused lessons,and althoughfeedbackin at thestructure form-focused lessonsmaybe directedprimarily targeted in the the lessons it is lesson, by likelyto be directedat meaning-focused feedback whatever errorslearnershappento make.Studiesofcorrective & & Ranta, Batsurkmen, Loewen, 1997;Ellis, 2001) demon(e.g.,Lyster forms stratethatin communicative lessonsa widevariety ofgrammatical are addressedincidentally corrective feedback. through There is littledoubt now that intensivegrammarlessons can be effective. Though earlierresearchshowedthatlearnersdo not always learnwhattheyare taught,especiallywhenlearningis measuredin terms of spontaneousproduction(e.g., Kadia, 1987), more recentresearch (e.g., Spada & Lightbown,1999) indicatesthateven iflearnersare not intensivegrammarteachingcan readyto learn the targetedstructure, them the help progressthrough sequence of stagesinvolvedin the In of that structure. other words,teachinga markedstructure acquisition can learners learn associated,less markedstructures intensively help Intensive evenifitdoes notresultin acquisitionofthemarkedstructure. instructionalso helps learnersto use structuresthey have already partiallyacquired more accurately(e.g., White,Spada, Lightbown,& Ranta,1991). and some empiricalevidencein Thereare also theoretical arguments favourof an extensiveapproach. Cook (1989) has argued fromthe ofuniversalgrammarthatlearnersrequireminimalevidence perspective to set a particularparameterforthe grammartheyare learning.Other ofnegativeevidencethrough researchers haveemphasisedtheimportance feedbackforgrammarlearningbyadults.Loewen (2002) has corrective feedbackare relatedto shownthatevenverybriefepisodesofcorrective correctnesson subsequenttests.In thatstudy,Loewen identifiedthe in thecontextofcommunicaerrorsthatteachersaddressedincidentally tivelanguageteachingand thendevelopedtailor-made tests,whichhe administered to thelearnerswhomade thespecificerrorseitherone day or two weekslater.These testsshowed that the learnerswere subseand correcttheirownerrors. quentlyoftenable to identify There are pros and cons forboth intensiveand extensivegrammar instruction. Some structures maynot be masteredwithoutthe opportufor nity repeated practice.Harley (1989), for example, found that anglophone learnersof L2 French failed to acquire the distinction 94

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

betweenthe preteriteand imparfait pasttensesafterhoursof exposure somecorrective feedback)in an immersion (and presumably programme butwereable to improvetheiraccuracyin usingthesetwotensesafter is timeconsuming intensiveinstruction. However,intensiveinstruction structures were the (in Harley'sstudy taughtover a 6-month targeted will constrain how time and thus, manystructurescan be period), on the otherhand, affords addressed.Extensivegrammarinstruction, structures. to attendto large numbersof grammatical the opportunity the structures than of will be addressed more not, Also, many likely because this kind a of time. of instrucover Further, period repeatedly tioninvolvesa responseto theerrorseach learnermakes,it is individutheskilledteacherreal-time forthekind alizedand affords opportunities ofcontextualanalysisthatCelce-Murcia(2002) recommendsas basisfor grammarteaching.However,it is not possible to attend to those thatlearnersdo notattemptto use (i.e., extensiveinstruction structures withavoidance). Also, of course, it does not cannot deal effectively the mayrequirebefore in-depthpractisethatsome structures provide can be fullyacquired. they grammarteachingneedsto be conceivedofin termsofboth Arguably, grammarteachingneedsto be reconceptualised approaches.Therefore, in teacherhandbooksto include the kind of extensivetreatmentof feedback. throughcorrective grammarthatarisesnaturally

IS THERE ANY VALUE IN TEACHING EXPLICIT GRAMMATICALKNOWLEDGE? The distinctionbetweenexplicitand implicitknowledgewas menconsistsof thefactsthatspeakers earlier.Explicit tionedbriefly knowledge ofa languagehavelearned.These factsare oftennotclearlyunderstood witheach other.Theyconcerndifferent and maybe in conflict aspectsof is languageincludinggrammar.Explicitknowledgeis held consciously, and is typically accessedthroughcontrolled learnableand verbalisable, in difficulty processingwhenlearnersexperiencesomekindoflinguistic needs to be drawnbetweenexplicitknowlusingthe L2. A distinction explanation.Analysed edge as analysedknowledgeand as metalinguistic featureworks, entailsa consciousawarenessofhowa structural knowledge consistsof knowledgeof grammatical while metalinguistic explanation metalanguageand the abilityto understandexplanationsof rules.In and can is procedural,is held unconsciously, contrast,implicit knowledge onlybe verbalizedifit is made explicit.It is accessedrapidlyand easily MostSLA and thusis availableforuse in rapid,fluentcommunication. a matterof researchersagree thatcompetencein an L2 is primarily implicitknowledge. CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

95

Whetherthereis anyvaluein teachingexplicitknowledgeofgrammar has been and remainstodayone of the most controversial issues in To make sense of the different teachinggrammar. positionsrelatingto the teachingof explicitknowledge,it is necessaryto considerthree separatequestions: 1. Is explicitknowledgeof anyvalue in and of itself? the developmentof 2. Is explicitknowledgeof value in facilitating implicitknowledge? 3. Is explicitknowledgebesttaughtdeductively or inductively? I partlyaddressedthefirst questionwhenI consideredwhatgrammar to teach.I notedthatresearchers disagreeoverlearners'abilityto learn some with explicitknowledge, (e.g., Krashen,1982) seeingthisas very limitedand others(e.g., Green& Hecht, 1992) producingevidenceto a separateissuerelated suggestthatitis considerable.Thereis,however, to thefirst This issue concerns the extent towhichlearnersare question. able to use theirexplicitknowledge(whatever thatconsistsof) in actual performance. Again,one positionis thatthisabilityis limited.Krashen that can onlyuse explicitknowledgewhentheymonitor, learners argues whichrequiresthattheyare focusedon form(as opposed to meaning) and have sufficient timeto access the knowledge.There is also some evidence that teachingexplicitknowledgeby itself(i.e., withoutany forpractising thetargetfeature)is noteffective. Studiesby opportunities VanPattenand Oikennon(1996) and Wong(2004) indicatethatexperimentalgroupsthatreceivedexplicitinformation alone performedno on and than a controlgroup tests differently interpretation production did. But otherpositionsare also possible.I have argued thatexplicit knowledgeis used in the processof formulating messagesas wellas in in and that learners are adroit accessingtheirexplicit monitoring many memoriesfor these purposes,especiallyif the rules are, to a degree, automatised.However,this does require time.Yuan and Ellis (2003) if showed that learners'grammaticalaccuracyimprovedsignificantly a narrative had on-line while time for task,a they performing planning result most readilyexplained in terms of their accessing explicit knowledge. of whetherexplicitknowledgehas anyvalue in and of Irrespective it thedevelopment assist itself, may byfacilitating languagedevelopment of implicitknowledge.This issueis addressedbythe second of the two hypothesis, questions.It concernswhathas become knownas the interface whichaddressesthe role explicitknowledgeplaysin L2 acquisition. Three positionscan be identified. position Accordingto the noninterface and (Krashen,1981), explicit implicitknowledgeare entirelydistinct withtheresultthatexplicitknowledgecannotbe convertedintoimplicit knowledge.This position is supportedby researchsuggestingthat 96

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

explicitand implicitmemoriesare neurologicallyseparate (Paradis, 1994). The interface arguesthe exactopposite.Drawingon skillposition learningtheory,DeKeyser(1998) argues that explicitknowledgebeforplentiful comesimplicitknowledgeiflearnershave the opportunity The weak claims communicative (Ellis, 1993) position interface practice. that explicitknowledgecan convertinto implicitknowledgeif the learneris readyto acquirethe targetedfeatureand thatthisconversion occursbypriminga numberofkeyacquisitionalprocesses,in particular thegap (Schmidt,1990). That is,explicitknowledge and noticing noticing makesit morelikelythatlearnerswillattend structure of a grammatical to the structurein the inputand carryout the cognitivecomparison betweenwhattheyobservein the inputand theirown output.These positionscontinueto be arguedat a theoreticallevel.Althoughthereis is effective in promotingL2 plentifulevidencethatexplicitinstruction & no Noms Ortega,2000) publishedstudyhas directly learning(e.g., intoimplicitknowltestedwhetherexplicitknowledgeconvertsdirectly One reason forthe lack of its facilitates or development. edge simply of researchis the problem of measurement,that is, the difficulty learners when of which theypertype knowledge employ ascertaining forma languagetaskor test. The threepositionssupportverydifferent approachesto language to a zerogrammar leads The noninterface position approach, teaching. and thatis,itprioritizes meaning-centred approachessuchas immersion PPP the idea that The interface task-based positionsupports teaching. a grammaticalstructureshould be firstpresentedexplicitlyand then The weakinterface positionalso practiseduntilitis fullyproceduralised. lendssupportto techniquesthatinducelearnersto attendto grammatical features.It has been used to providea basisforconsciousness-raising tasksthatrequirelearnersto derivetheirown explicitgrammarrules fromdatatheyare providedwith(Ellis,1993;Fotos,1994). It is likelythat all threeapproacheswill continueto attractsupporters,drawingon differenttheoriesof L2 acquisitionand citing research that lends indirectsupportto the preferredapproach. It is unlikelythat this willbe resolvedthroughresearchin the nearfuture. controversy The thirdquestionassumesthereis value in explicitknowledgeand addresseshow best to teach it. In deductiveteaching,a grammatical and thenpractisedin one wayor another; is presentedinitially structure thisis thefirstP in the present-practise-produce sequence. In inductive first to learners are exposed exemplarsof the grammatical teaching, and are asked to arriveat a metalinguistic structure generalisationon oftherule. theirown;theremayor maynotbe a finalexplicitstatement A numberofstudies(see Erlam,2003,fora review)haveexaminedthe ofthesetwoapproachesto teachingexplicitknowlrelativeeffectiveness been mixed.Forexample,Herronand Tomosello The results have edge. CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

97

Robinson instruction, (1992) founda clear advantageforinductive while Rosa was more effective, (1996)foundthata deductive approach and O'Neill (1999) foundno significant in effectiveness. difference Erlam's(2003)ownstudy forthegroup revealed a significant advantage deductive instruction. to be learned the main lesson receiving Perhaps fromtheresearch to dateis theneedfora differentiated approachto bothresearching It andteaching is thatmany knowledge. likely explicit variables affect mostfrom,including whichapproachlearnersbenefit the specificstructure and the thatis the targetof the instruction learners'aptitudeforgrammatical rules maybestbe analysis. Simple be taught while more rules best taughtdeductively, may complex in Learners are skilled inductively. grammatical analysis likelyto fare better withan inductive than those lessskilled. approach IS THERE A BEST WAYTO TEACH GRAMMARFOR IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE? To answerthisquestionit is necessary to identify theinstructional I haveattempted thisin a numberof optionsforteachinggrammar. publications justtwo:the (e.g.,Ellis1997,1998,2002b).51willconsider difference instruction and betweeninput-based and production-based between different ofcorrective feedback. types The case forthe input-based optionis based on a computational modelofL2 acquisition, towhichacquisition takesplaceas a according and processing productof learnerscomprehending input.Such apattention to whendirected atgrammar, seektodrawlearners' proaches, for thetargeted structure (s) in one or moreways:simply bycontriving numerousexemplars of the structure (s) to be presentin the input thetargetstructure materials, (s) in someway(e.g.,by byhighlighting tasks , orbymeansofinterpretation texts) usingboldoritalicsinwritten to form-meaning learners'attention (Ellis,1995) directedat drawing oftheinputVanPatten (1996,2003)hasdevelopeda version mappings. at Thisis directed basedoptionthathe callsinput instruction. processing thatare a strategies helpinglearnersto overcomethe default processing featureof interlanguages (e.g., assumingthatthe firstnoun in a sentence is always theagent). A casefortheoutput-based optioncanbe foundin bothskill-building theory(see previousdiscussion)or in a arises towhichlearning sociocultural ofL2 learning, according theory 51 distinguishbetween psycholinguisticand methodological options (cf. Ellis, 1998). optionsare Psycholinguistic optionsare related to some model of L2 acquisition.Methodological evidentin instructionalmaterialsforteachinggrammar.Here I consideronlypsycholinguistic options. 98

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

out of social interactionwhichscaffoldslearners'attemptsto produce new grammaticalstructures(Ohta, 2001). A numberof studieshave ofinput-based and production-based comparedtherelativeeffectiveness withmixed results,resultingin ongoingdebate about the instruction, meritsofthesetwooptions(VanPatten, relative 2002;DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson,& Harrington,2002). It may be that,in classrooms,this meaninglessbecause,in practise,bothoptions comparisonis ultimately and production.For example,it is are likelyto involveinput-processing in that an conceivable input-basedapproach,individualstudents quite the while in a production-based structure, target silentlyproduce apan utterance one studentservesas input for produced by proach, another.It is, therefore,not surprisingthatboth options have been shownto resultin acquisition.6 There is a rich descriptiveliteratureon correctivefeedback (i.e., fewstudieshave teacherresponsesto learnererrors)but remarkably the relative effects of different of feedback on acquisiinvestigated types tion.Keyoptionsare (a) whetherthefeedbackis implicitor explicitand occurs (b) whetherthefeedbackis inputor outputbased.Implicit feedback forceoftheresponseto learnererroris masked,for whenthecorrective a deviantutterancecorrectingit whichreformulates example,a recast, whilekeepingthesame meaning: NNS: Whyhe isveryunhappy?

NS:

Whyis he veryunhappy?

NNS: Yeah whyis veryunhappy?(Philp,2003) Or, as in this contrivedexample, a request for clarification: NNS: Whyhe is veryunhappy? NS:

Sorry?

NNS: Whyis he veryunhappy? takesa numberof forms,such as directcorrectionor Explicit feedback metalinguistic explanation.There is some evidencethatexplicitfeedin both elicitingthe learner'simmediatecorrect back is moreeffective and in elicitingsubsequentcorrectuse,forexample, use ofthestructure in a post-test (Carroll& Swain1993;Lyster2004). Butsomeevidenceand 6There is also of these two (and controversy regardinghow to measure the effectiveness of other) instructionaloptions. Norrisand Ortega (2000) have shown that the effectiveness instructionvaries depending on whetherit is measured using metalinguisticjudgements, selected response,constrainedconstructedresponse,or freeconstructedresponse.Most SLA researchers(and teachers,too, perhaps) would consider the last of these the most valid measure.Ellis (2002a) revieweda numberofstudiesthatexaminedtheeffectsofdifferent kinds of instructionon learners'freeconstructedresponses,reportingthatinstructioncan have an effecton thistypeof language use. CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

99

some strongtheoreticalreasonsexistto supportimplicitfeedback(see Long 1996,in press).Indeed, thistypeof feedbackis morecompatible withthefocus-on-form approachdiscussedearlierbecauseitensuresthat learnersare more likelyto stayfocused on meaning. However,as when Muranoi(2000) notes,implicitfeedbackis probablymoreeffective at a preselectedformthan when it occurs it is targetedintensively in incidentalfocuson form.In thelatter, explicitattentionto extensively formmaybe moreeffective. modelsthe correctformforthe learner(e.g., by Input-based feedback elicitsproductionof thecorrect meansofa recast).Output-based feedback formfromthe learner (e.g., by means of a requestforclarification). ofthesetwo abouttherelativeeffectiveness Again,thereis disagreement feedbackoptionsand no clear evidencefor choosingbetweenthem. feedbackis more Some descriptive studieshaveshownthatoutput-based erroneousuttertheir own initial to lead to learners likely correcting to as uptake. ances in whatis referred However,uptakeis notthesameas acquisition. In short,although considerableprogresshas been made toward identifyingthose instructionaloptions that are likely to be of as yet,fewconclusionscan be drawnabout significance, psycholinguistic foracquisition.It is possibleto pointto whichones are themosteffective studiesand theoreticalargumentsthatsuggestthateach of the major optionsdiscussedcan contributeto acquisition.

SHOULD GRAMMARBE TAUGHT IN SEPARATE LESSONS OR INTEGRATED INTO COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES? In Ellis (2001) I considered three broad typesof form-focused as shownin Table 1. "Focuson forms"refersto instruction instruction, a approach,wherethe students'primary involving structure-of-the-day focusis on form(i.e., accuracy)and wherethe activitiesare directed at a single grammaticalstructure.This approach, then, intensively involvesteachinggrammarin a seriesof separatelessons.Focusonform entailsa focuson meaningwithattentionto formarisingout of the wherea focusedtaskis Thisfocuscan be planned, communicative activity. a for to elicit occasions using predeterminedgrammatical required structure, as,forexample,in Samuda (2001). In thisapproach,attention to the predeterminedgrammaticalstructureswill also be intensive. whereattentionto formin focuson formcan be incidental Alternatively, butrather is not thecontextofa communicative predetermined activity as the needs occursin accordancewiththeparticipants' activity linguistic 100

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 1 Types of Form-FocusedInstruction

Focus Primary

Type 1. Focuson forms 2. Plannedfocuson form 3. Incidental focuson form

Form Meaning Meaning

Distribution Intensive Intensive Extensive

Note. Thistableis-adaptedfromEllis(2001,p. 17).

proceeds.In thisapproach,it is likelythatattentionwillbe givento a structures widevariety ofgrammatical duringanyone taskand thuswill be extensive.Focus on formimpliesno separategrammarlessonsbut rathergrammarteachingintegratedinto a curriculumconsistingof tasks. communicative There is considerabletheoreticaldisagreementregardingwhichof is mosteffective in developingimplicitknowlthesetypesof instruction and havearguedstrongly that 1991) (2001) edge. Long (1988, Doughty focuson formis bestequipped to promoteinterlanguage development because the acquisitionof implicitknowledgeoccurs as a resultof format thesame timetheyare engaged learnersattendingto linguistic withunderstandingand producingmeaningfulmessages.Other researchers,however,have argued that a focus-on-forms approach is for has effective. that DeKeyser(1998), example, argued grammatical structures are learnedgraduallythroughthe automatisation of explicit this can be of and that achieved means a focus-on-forms by knowledge approach.This approach acknowledgesthe value of teachingexplicit it by means of activities knowledgeand subsequentlyproceduralising behaviours involve and that tasks) (i.e., (drills practise meaning)rather It is worthnoting,however,one pointof agreementin than structures. needs to ensurethatlearnersare thesedifferent positions:Instruction able to connect grammaticalformsto the meaningstheyrealise in So far,thedebatehas addressedthedifference communication. between focuson formand focuson forms.Therehas been littlediscussionofthe relativemeritsof planned and incidentalfocuson form.In effect,this discussionwouldinvolvea considerationofwhetherinstruction should a questionwe havealreadyconsidered. be intensiveor extensive,

CONCLUSION Grammarhas held and continuesto hold a centralplace in language teaching.The zero grammarapproachwas flirtedwithbut neverreally CURRENTISSUES IN THE TEACHINGOF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

101

tookhold,as is evidentin boththecurrenttextbookmaterialsemanating frompublishinghouses (e.g., Whitney& White,2001) and in current that theoriesofL2 acquisition.There is ample evidenceto demonstrate works. teachinggrammar thata traditional approachto Althoughthereis nowa clearconviction and drill-like based on practice teachinggrammar explicitexplanations is unlikelyto resultin theacquisitionof theimplicitknowledgeneeded forfluentand accuratecommunication, therecontinuesto be disagreementregardingwhatshouldreplacethis.It seemsappropriate,then,to finishwitha statementof my own beliefsabout grammarteaching, thatmanyof themremaincontroversial: acknowledging 1. The grammartaughtshould be one thatemphasisesnotjust form structures. but also the meaningsand uses of different grammatical structures 2. Teachersshouldendeavourto focuson thosegrammatical thatare knownto be problematic to learnersratherthantryto teach thewholeof grammar. 3. Grammaris besttaughtto learnerswho havealreadyacquiredsome level) ratherthanto abilityto use the language (i.e., intermediate can be taughtthrough complete beginners.However,grammar correctivefeedbackas soon as learnersbegin to use the language productively. 4. A focus-on-forms approachis validas long as itincludesan opportutasks. for learners to nity practisebehaviourin communicative witha massed 5. Considerationshould be given to experimenting to ratherthandistributed approach teachinggrammar. instruc6. Use shouldbe made of bothinput-basedand output-based tionaloptions. 7. A case existsforteachingexplicitgrammatical knowledgeas a means of of assistingsubsequentacquisition implicitknowledge.Teaching explicitknowledgecan be incorporatedintoboth a focus-on-forms and a focus-on-form approach. In the case of a focus-on-forms sometimesdeductive approach,a differentiated approachinvolving work best. and sometimesinductiveinstruction may 8. An incidentalfocus-on-form approachis of specialvalue because it affordsan opportunityfor extensivetreatmentof grammatical afforded bya focusproblems(in contrastto theintensivetreatment on-forms approach). 9. Correctivefeedbackis importantfor learninggrammar.It is best conductedusinga mixtureof implicitand explicitfeedbacktypes thatare bothinputbased and outputbased.

102

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

should take 10. In accordancewiththesebeliefs,grammarinstruction the formof separategrammarlessons(a focus-on-forms approach) intocommunicative activities and shouldalso be integrated (a focuson-form approach). are open to challenge.They not all) of these statements (if Many of whatthe researchto date has constitutea personalinterpretation shown.It mayalso seem thatI am hedgingmybetsbyencompassinga thatanything widenumberof optionsand thatI am suggesting goes. It is certainlytruethatI do not believe (and do not thinkthe research demonstrates)that thereis just one preferredapproach to teaching grammar.The acquisitionof the grammaticalsystemof an L2 is a can be assistedbestbya variety of complexprocessand almostcertainly is is to what are But what important recognize options approaches. available,whatthetheoreticalrationalesfortheseoptionsare,and what the problemsare withthese rationales.This is the startingpoint for developinga personaltheoryof grammarteaching. existspointsto the need formore The factthatso muchcontroversy research.One ofthegreatestneedsis forresearchthataddressestowhat resultsin implicitknowlextentand in whatwaysgrammarinstruction of methods this would measuringacquisitionthat require edge. Ideally, to use the into learners' grammaticalstructures theyhave ability tap oral Studies been taughtin communication communication). (especially thatemploysuchmethodsare stillfewand farbetween.Anotherneed is the effectsof instruction over forlongitudinalstudiesthatinvestigate time.Althoughmostrecentlypublishedstudiesinclude delayedposttreatments of a relatively tests,theytypically incorporateinstructional shortduration.Longitudinalstudiesthatemployqualitativeas well as methodswillhelp to shownotjust ifthereis a delayedeffect quantitative but also itsaccumulativeeffect.The effects of corrective forinstruction when feedback,forexample,are mostlikelyto becomeevidentgradually learnersare repeatedlyexposed to feedbackon the same grammatical Furtherresearch,even if it does not succeed in providing structures. clear-cutanswersto the questionsraisedin thisarticle,willdeepen our of the issuesinvolvedand affordbetterdefinedproviunderstanding sionalspecifications (Stenhouse,1975), whichteacherscan experiment within theirownclassrooms. THE AUTHOR in the Departmentof AppliedLanguageStudiesand Rod Ellis is a professor ofAuckland, in NewZealand.He has publishedwidely at theUniversity Linguistics the fieldof SLA. His latestbooks are Analyzing LanguageLearningand Planningand in a SecondLanguage. TaskPerformance

CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

103

REFERENCES Basturkmen,H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidentalfocus on formand theirclassroompractices.AppliedLinguistics, 25, 243-272. and skillsin English.Arusha,Tanzania: Longman. Bright,J. (1965). Patterns Brooks, N. (1960). Language and languagelearning.New York: Harcourt Brace & World. Carroll,S., & Swain,M. (1993). Explicitand implicitnegativefeedback:An empirical studyof the learning of linguisticgeneralizations.Studiesin SecondLanguage 15, 357-386. Acquisition, Celce-Murcia,M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language 25, 459-480. teaching.TESOL Quarterly, Celce-Murcia,M. (2002). Whyitmakessense to teach grammarthroughcontextand on grammar throughdiscourse. In E. Hinkel 8c S. Fotos (Eds.), Newperspectives teachingin secondlanguage classrooms(pp. 119-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. book(2nd éd.). Boston: D. (1999). Thegrammar Celce-Murcia,M., & Larsen-Freeman, Heinle 8cHeinle. Collins,L., Halter,R., Lightbown,P., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and distributionof timein L2 instruction.TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655-680. 17, 169-182. Cook, V. (1989). Universalgrammartheoryand the classroom.System, Reviewof Corder, S. P. (1967). The significanceof learners' errors.International 5, 161-169. AppliedLinguistics, DeKeyser,R. (1998). Beyondfocuson form:Cognitiveperspectiveson learningand practicingsecond language grammar.In C. Doughty8c]. Williams(Eds.), Focuson secondlanguageacquisition(pp. 42-63). Cambridge,England: formin classroom Press. CambridgeUniversity DeKeyser, R., Salaberry,R., Robinson, P., 8c Harrington,M. (2002). What gets A commentaryon Bill VanPatten's"Processprocessedin processinginstruction? An update." LanguageLearning,52, 805-824. ing instruction: Doughty,C. (2001). Cognitiveunderpinningsof focus on form.In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognitionand secondlanguageinstruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge,EnPress. gland: CambridgeUniversity Ellis,N. C. (2005). At theinterface:How explicitknowledgeaffectsimplicitlanguage 27, 305-352. learning.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, secondlanguagedevelopment. Oxford,England: Pergamon. Ellis,R. (1984). Classroom secondlanguageacquisition. Oxford,England: Oxford Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Press. University Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structuralsyllabus.TESOL 27, 91-113. Quarterly, tasksforgrammarteaching.TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87Ellis,R. (1995). Interpretation 105. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA researchand language teaching.Oxford, England: Oxford Press. University Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL 32, 39-60. Quarterly, instruction.In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused form-focused Ellis,R. (2001). Investigating instruction and secondlanguagelearning(pp. 1-46). Maiden, MA: Blackwell. instructionaffectthe acquisition of implicit Ellis, R. (2002a). Does form-focused 24, knowledge?A reviewof the research.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, 223-236. Ellis,R. (2002b). The place of grammarinstructionin the second/foreignlanguage 104

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ongrammar in curriculum.In E. Hinkel 8cS. Fotos (Eds.), Newperspectives teaching secondlanguageclassrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Ellis,R., Basturkmen,H., & Loewen, H. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.LanguageLearning,51, 281-318. Erlam, R. (2003). The effectsof deductive and inductive instructionon the acquisitionof directobject pronounsin Frenchas a second language. TheModern LanguageJournal,87, 242-260. Fotos,S. (1994). Integratinggrammarinstructionand communicativelanguage use tasks.TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351. throughgrammarconsciousness-raising twolanguages:Studiesofimmersion and bilingual Genesee, F. (1987). Learningthrough education. Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse. Green, P., 8c Hecht, K. (1992). Implicitand explicitgrammar:An empiricalstudy. 13, 168-184. AppliedLinguistics, Harley,B. (1989). Functionalgrammarin French immersion:A classroomexperiment.AppliedLinguistics, 19, 331-359. Oxford,England: Hedge, T. (2000). Teachingand learningin thelanguageclassroom. Press. OxfordUniversity Herron, C, & Tomosello, M. (1992). Acquiringgrammaticalstructuresby guided induction.FrenchReview,65, 708-718. Howatt,T. (1974). The backgroundto course design. In J. Allen 8c S. P. Corder (Eds.), The Edinburghcoursein appliedlinguistics:Vol. 3. Techniquesin applied Press. linguistics (pp. 1-23). Oxford,England: OxfordUniversity on theutility ot metalinguistic Hu, G. (2002). Psychologicalconstraints knowledgein second language production.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, 24, 347-386. Hughes,A. (1979). Aspectsof a Spanish adult's acquisitionof English.Interlanguage StudiesBulletin,4, 49-65. Kadia, K. (1987). The effectof formalinstructionon monitoredand spontaneous naturalisticinterlanguageperformance.TESOL Quarterly, 22, 509-515. Krashen,S. (1981). Secondlanguageacquisitionand secondlanguagelearning.Oxford, England: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1982). Principlesand practicein secondlanguageacquisition.Oxford, England: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1993). The effectof grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL 27, 717-725. Quarterly, A scientific Lado, R. (1964). Languageteaching: approach.New York:McGrawHill. Lado, R. (1970). Lado Englishseries:Book1. Montreal,Canada: Centre Educatifet Culturel. Lightbown,P. (1991). What have we here? Some observationson the effectof instructionon L2 learning.In R. Phillipson,E. Kellerman,L. Selinker,M. Sharwood Smith,8cM. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/ secondlanguagepedagogy research (pp. 197212). Clevedon,England: MultilingualMatters. of incidentalfocuson formin Loewen, S. (2002) . The occurrenceand effectiveness of meaning-focusedESL lessons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University Auckland,New Zealand. A review Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instructionmake a difference? of the research.TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382. Long, M. H. (1988). Instructedinterlanguagedevelopment.In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in secondlanguageacquisition:Multipleperspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology.In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg,8c C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreignlanguage research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CURRENTISSUES IN THE TEACHINGOF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

105

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguisticenvironmentin second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbookof secondlanguage acquisition(pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Long, M. H. (in press). Recastsin SLA: The storyso far.In M. H. Long (Ed.) , Problems in SLA. Mahwah,NT:LawrenceErlbaum. Lyster,R. (2004). Differentialeffectsof prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, 26, 399-432. Lyster,R., 8cRanta, L. (1997). Correctivefeedbackand learneruptake:Negotiation of formin communicativeclassrooms.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, 19, 37-66. Mackey,W. (1976). Languageteaching analysis.London: Longman. Macrory,G., 8cStone,V. (2000). Pupil progressin theacquisitionof theperfecttense in French: The relationshipbetween knowledge and use. Language Teaching Research, 4, 55-82. Muranoi,H. (2000). Focus on formthroughinteractionenhancement:Integrating formal instructioninto a communicativetask in EFL classrooms. Language Learning,50, 617-673. bookforintermediate and practice reference Murphy,R. (1994). Englishin use:A self-study Press. students (2nd éd.). Cambridge,England: CambridgeUniversity A researchsynthesis of L2 instruction: Norris,J.,8c Ortega,L. (2000). Effectiveness and quantitativemeta-analysis. LanguageLearning,50, 417-528. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Secondlanguageacquisitionprocessesin theclassroom: Learning Japanese.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Paradis,M. (1994). Neurolinguisticaspectsof implicitand explicitmemory:Implications for bilingualismand SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed)., Implicitand explicitlearningof languages(pp. 393-419). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Perdue,C, 8cKlein,W. (1993). Concludingremarks.In C. Perdue (Ed.) , Adultsecond Vol. 2. The results(pp. 253-272). languageacquisition:Cross-linguistic perspectives: Press. Cambridge,England: CambridgeUniversity Philp,J. (2003). Constraintson "noticingthe gap": Non-nativespeakers'noticingof recastsin NS-NNS interaction.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, 25, 99-126. Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisitionof Englishas a second language under different conditionsof exposure. LanguageLearning,33, 465-497. Quirk,R., Greenbaum,S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, ofcontemporary J. (1972). A grammar English.London: Longman. Richards,J., Platt,J., 8c Weber, H. (1985). Longmandictionary ofappliedlinguistics. London: Longman. Robinson,P. (1996). Learningsimpleand complex rules under implicit,incidental rule-searchconditions, and instructedconditions. Studiesin SecondLanguage 18, 27-67. Acquisition, Rosa, R., 8cO'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness,intakeand theissue ofawareness.Studies in SecondLanguageAcquisition, 21, 511-556. Samuda, V. (2001). Gettingrelationshipbetween formand meaning during task performance:The role of the teacher.In M. Bygate,P. Skehan,& M. Swain (Eds.), Task-basedlearning:Language teaching,learningand assessment (pp. 119-140). Harlow,England: Pearson. Schmidt,R. (1990). The role of consciousnessin second language learning.Applied 11, 129-58. Linguistics, Oxford,England: Oxford Skehan,P. (1998). A cognitive approachtolanguagelearning. Press. University Spada, N., & Lightbown,P. (1999). Instruction,firstlanguage influence, and

106

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

developmentalreadiness in second language acquisition. The ModernLanguage Journal,83, 1-22. tocurriculum research and development. London: Stenhouse,L. (1975). An introduction

Heinemann.

and other Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). LearnerEnglish: A Teacher'sguide to interference

Press. (2nd éd.). Cambridge,England: CambridgeUniversity problems Trahey,M., 8c White,L. (1993). Positiveevidence and preemptionin the second 15, 181-204. language classroom.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, errors. London: Turton,J.,8cHeaton, N. (Eds.). (1996). Longmandictionary ofcommon Longman. Ur, P. (1996). A coursein language teaching.Cambridge, England: Cambridge Press. University and grammarinstruction in secondlanguage VanPatten,B. (1996). Input processing Norwood,NJ:Ablex. acquisition. An update. LanguageLearning, VanPatten,B. (2002). Processinginstruction: 52, 755804. VanPatten, B. (2003). Frominput to output:A teacher'sguide to secondlanguage New York:McGraw-Hill. acquisition. VanPatten,B., & Oikennon,S. (1996). Explanationvs.structuredinputin processing instruction.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, 18, 495-510. connections in second VanPatten,B., Williams,J., 8c Rott, S. (2004). Form-meaning Mahwah,NJ.:LawrenceErlbaum. languageacquisition. course. Walter,C, & Swan,M. (1990). ThenewEnglishCambridge Cambridge,England: Press. CambridgeUniversity White,L., Spada, N., Lightbown,P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancementand 12, 416-432. questionformation.AppliedLinguistics, book1. Oxford,England: Oxford Whitney,N., & White,L. (2001). Teamup: Students Press. University in French:The rolesof explicitinformation Wong,W. (2004). Processinginstruction and structuredinput.In B. VanPatten(Ed.), Frominputtooutput:A teacher's guide tosecondlanguageacquisition(pp. 187-205). New York:McGraw-Hill. Yuan, F., & Ellis,R. (2003). The effectsof pre-taskplanningand on-lineplanningon and accuracyin L2 oral production.AppliedLinguistics, 24, 1fluency,complexity, 27.

CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:25:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

107