Sie sind auf Seite 1von 189
how to Teach rammar Scott Thornbury Joc. MUGLA UNIVERSITES! KUTBRHAME VE DOKUMANTAS OTe DAIREST BASKANLICH Ogmitbas No: ooloy series editor: ara ns Jeremy Harmer Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2B, England and Associated Companies thoughout the Worle sesewlongman.cora © Pearson Education Limited 1999 All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, In any form or by any means, electronic, mechanied, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written pettuission of the Publisher. The Pablisher grants perm jon for the photacopying of those pages marked ‘photocop ording to the following conditions. Individual purchasers may my ‘own ese or for use by classes they each, School purchasers may make copies for use by their staff and students, but this permission does not extend to additional schools or branches, Under no circumstances ray uny part of this book be photocopied for resale. The right of Scott Thornbury to be identified as the author of this Work bas been asserted by him in accordance with che Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Furst published 1999 Foxsith fmpression 2002 Printed in Malaysia, PP Produced for the publishers by Bhiestone Press, Charlbury, Oxfordshire, UK. “Text design by Keith Rigley at White Horse Geaphies ISBN 0582 339324 Acknowledgements We are grateful to che following for permission to reproduce copyright material: British National Corpus for extracts based on headings ‘Remember’, ‘Forget’ and ‘Stop’ fom The British Nutional Corpus web site, Cambridge Univessity Press and the author for an ext trom Engfish Gransimar tn Use by R. Murphy (1994), ¢ ford University Press for an extract and illustration ‘from Oxford Profretsige Prglish Cowse by Homby (1954), Pearson Educstion Lid for oxtd"ind iMlustrations from Over fo Us, ESO 4, Teacher's Book by Palencia and Thorabury published by Longman Group Ltd (1998) and from Grammar Practice (® Biternediate Stintents by Walker 3¢ Elswarth published by Longman Group Led (1986), We have been unable to trace the copyright holder of news items ‘Concern for missing monkey’, ‘Sighting of missing monkey’, ‘Monkey stil] on the loose’, uped monkey shot dead’ from TVNZ web site (1997), und would appreciate any tnfocmation which would enable us to do eo. fustrations on page 106 by Roy Nixon Contents Acknowledgements introduction 1 What is grammar? + Tests, sentences, words, sounds + Grammar and meaning + Tivo kinds of meaning * Grammar and Sinction + Spoken geammar and written grammar + Grammar syllabuses + Grammar rales Conclusions Looking ahead 2 Why teach grammar? + Attitudes to grammar + The case for grammar + The case against grammar + Grammar and methods + Grammar now + Basie principle Conclusions Looking ahead jor grammar teaching 3. How to teach grammar from rules + A deductive approach + Rules and explanations + Sample Icsson 1: Using a rule explanation to teach question formation + Sample lesson 2: Teaching ssed ¢e using transiation + Sample lesson 3: Teaching articles using grammar worksheets + Sample lesson 4: Teaching word order using a self-study grammar Conclusions Leoking ahead Page viii 14 2g How to teach grammar from examples 43 + Inductive tearning + Pros and cons of an inductive approach + Sample lesson 4: Teaching imperatives through actions + Sample lesson 2: Teaching the present simple using cealia + Sample lesson 3: Teaching should have dose using a generative situation + Sample lesson 4: Teaching the diérenee benween past siraple and present perfvcr through minimat sentence pairs + Sample fesson 5; Teaching verbs that take botl infinitive and ing forms, using concordance data Conclusions Looking ahead How to teach grammar through texts bo + Texes and contexts + Sources of tex + Sample lesson 1; Using a seripted dialogue to teach the present simple + Sample fesson 2: Using an authentic text to seach the passive + Sample lesson 3: Using student language to review ways of talking about the future + Sample lesson -t: Using a dictogloss to teach wad fos past habits + Sample lesson 5: Using genre analy reporting language Conclusions Looking ahead is to teach 9 How to test grammar + Grammar testing + Sample test #: Testing grammar using discyete-item tests + Sample test 2: Testing grammer iran oral performance vest Conclusions Looking ahead 10 How NOT to teach grammar + Sample lesson: How nos to teack the past perfect + Some rules + Some conditions > Some cavents Task File Task File Key Further reading Index 144 154 187 V7T 179 180 vil vi How to practise grammar 9 + Practice + Accuracy + Fluency + Restructuring + Sample lesson 1: Practising few mush/bow many? using a sequence of oral drills + Sample lesson 2: Practising the third conditional using written exercises + Sample lesson 3: Practising cau using an information gap activity + Sannple lesson 4: Practising the present perfect using a personalisation task + Sample lesson 5: Practising the passive using a gemma interpretation sting ‘auyple Leeson 6; Practising going fo using conversation Conclusions Looking ahead How to deal with grammar errors 43 © What are errors? + Altitudes to error and correction + Responding to errors + Sample lesson 1: Using learners’ errors to review cohesive devices + Sample lesson 2:'Teaching grammar through reformulation Conclusion Looking ahead How to integrate grammar 128 + The PPP model + An alternative model + Sunple lesson 1: Integrating grammar using a PPP model of instruction + Sample lesson 2: Integrating grammar using taskebased model of instruction + Sample lesson 3: Integrating grammar into a skills-based lesson + Sample lesson 4: Integrating grammar into a story-based lesson for very young learners Conclusions Locking ahead vill Acknowledgements The following colleagues and driends may recognise bits of themselves scattered throughout this book ~ to then many thanks: Jessica MacKay, Lyan Darrant, Nicole Taylor, Theresa Zanasta, Karl Katiski, Piet Lucthi, Neil Forrest, and Albert Stabl, Thanks ure also due to Jeremy Harmer, for his boundless enthusiasm from start c@ nish, and co Hester Lott, for her skilfut and painstaking editing, Talso wish to acknowledge the help and inspiration that three books have given me: Peter Skehan's 4 Cogiitive Approach to Language Learning {Oniord University Press, 1998); Rod Ellis’ Sid Research and Language Teaching (Oxford Universicy Press, 1997) and Keith Johnson's Language Teaching sd Skit Leaming (Blacovel 1996). 1 shoule of couse, acd that no blame muse be attached to those books for any flaws in this one. Who is this book for? What is this hook about? introduction How: to Teach Grammer has been wriswen for teachers of English who are curious or confused or onconvinced about the teaching of grammar, They may be in tiaining, relatively new to the job, or very experienced. Grammar teaching has always been one of the most controversial and least understood aspects of language teaching, Few teachers remain inditierent to grammar and inany teachers become obsessed by it. This book attempts to shed fight om the issues, but it is essentially a hook about practice, about how, and the bulk of the book explores a range of grammar teaching options. Chapter 1 contains a brief overview of whet grammar js, and Chapter 2 addresses the pros and cons of geammar instraction. The sample lessons that cesnprise the rest of the book have been chosen both to represent 9 range of teaching approsches, and also as vehicles for the teaching of a representative selection of grammar items ~ the sort of items that any current coursebook series will inchide. Each sample lesson is followed by a discussion of the rationale underpinning it, and an evaluation of it according to criteria that are established in Chapter 2, It is important to bear in mind that each lesson description is simply that: « description. The lessons are not meant to represent an ideal way of teaching grammar: there are as many different ways of teaching grammar as there are teachers texching it, and it is not the purpose of this book to promote any one particular method or approach over another. Rather, the porpose is to trigger cycles of classroom experimentation and reflection, taking into account the features of every individual teaching siruation. As the Rule of Apprapriacy (see Chapter 10) pats it: Interpret any saggestions according to the level, needs, interests, expectations and learning styles of your students. This may mean giving a lor of prominence to grammar, or if may mean never actually teaching geammur ~ in an up-front way ~ at all ‘The Task File at the back of the back comprises a number of tasks relevant to each chapter, They can he used as a basis tor discussion in a training context, or for individual reflection and review. A Key is provided for those tasks that expect specific answers. Texts, sentences, words, sounds Grammar and meaning ‘Wo kinds of meaning Grammar and function Spoken grammar and written grammar Graramar syllabuses eeees eee Grammar rules Texts, Here is an exmple of language in uve: sentences, This ls 2680239. We are not at home right now. Please leave a message after words, sounds the beep. ‘You will recognise it as an answerphone message, That is the kind of text it is. It consists of three sentences, which themselves consist of words, and the words (when spoken) consist of sounds, All language in ase can be analysed at cach of these four levels: text, sentence, word and sound. These are the forms that language takes. The study of grammar consists, in part, of fooking at the way these forms are arranged and patterned, For example, fy ‘you change the order of the sentences you no longer have a well-formed answerphone message: Please leave a message after the beep. This 1s 2080239, We are not at home right now. Likewise, che order of words in each sentence is fairly fixed: feop after a leave the please message, “The samme applies to the order of sounds in a word: peed Gracmar is partly the study of what forms (or steucrares) are possible in x hingaage, Traditionally, grammar has been concerned almost exclusively with analysis at the level of rhe sentence. Thus a grammar is a description of the roles that govern how a langnage’s sentences are formed. Gramsyar attempts to explain why the following sentences are acceptable: We are not at harne right now, Right now we are not at home, but why this one is not How to Teach Grammar Not we at right home now are. Nor this one: We is not at home right now, The system of rules that cover the order of words in a sentence is called syntax. Syntax rules disallow: Not we at right home now are, ‘The system of rules that cover the formation of words is called morphology. Morphology rules disallow: We is not at home right now. Grammar is conventionally seen as the study of the syntax and morphology of sentences, Put another way, it Js the snidy of linguistic chains and slots. That is, it is the stady both of the way words are chained together in a particular ordes, and also of what kinds of words can slot into any one link in the chain. These two kinds of relation can be shown diagrammatically: 1 2 3 4 5 | We are not at home. | They are ar work, \ | Dad is in hospital. 1 ara in bed. Notice that the order of elements on the horizontal axis is fairly fixed. The effect of switching the first nwo cohimns has a msjor effect on meaning: it turns the sentence into a question: Are we nat af ome? Is Dad in bed? Switching columns two and three, or four and five, is simply not possible. Simifrly, it should be clear thar the elements in the firse column share a roup-like finerion, those in the second column fill the verb slot and those in the fourth columa are prepositions, Again, it is not possible to take slot filling elements and make chains of them. H6 are not af home work bed does not work as an Engtish sentence. Ir is the capacity to recognise the constraints on how sentence elements are chained and oa how sentence slots are filled that makes s good amateur grammatiaa, For example, different languages have different constraints on the way chains ace ordered and slots are filled, Many second language Jearner exvors result from overgeneralising rules from their own Innguage. So, in | want that your agency return me the money. the learner has selected the wrong kind of chain to follow the verb wand, White in: i have chosen to describe Stephen Hawking, a notorious scientific of our century. the chain is all right, but the words chosen to fill certuin slots don't fit. Notorious has the wrong shade of meaning, while sciewiific is an adjective wrongly inserted into a noun slot. fo a neem nA oS 1 © What is grammar? From a Ieamer’s perspective, the ability both to recognise and to produce well-formed sentences is an escential part of learning a second language, But there are a tumber of problemas, First, as we shall see, there is a great deal of debate as to how this ability is best developed. Second, it is not enticely clear what ‘well-formed’ really means, when a lot of naturally occusving speech seems to violate strict grammatical rales, For example, in many English-speaking contexts i¥@ ain? at bome would be preferred to 1 are nor at Fome yet only the latter bas made it into the grammar books, ‘Third, an exclusive focus on sentences, rather than on texts or om words, risks under-equipping the learner for real language use, There is more to language learning than the abifity to produce well-formed sentences, Texts and words also have grammaas, in the sense that there are rules governing how both texts and words ace organised, but ix is not always clear where sentence grammar ends and either word grammar or text grammar begins, But, since most language teaching coursebooks and grammars are still firmly grounded in the sentence grammar tradition, for the purposes of his hook we will assume grammar to mean grammag at the level of the sentence. Grammar and In the last section the point was made that ‘grammas is partly the study of meaning What forms are possible’. But that does nat explain why the follawing sounds odd: This (s 2680229, We are at home right now, Please leave a message after the beep. The sentence [Me are at bome right now is possible, Thar is, itis, grammatically well-formed. But it doesn’t make sense in this context. The fore the speaker has chosen doesn’t convey the exact meaning the speaker requires. We now need to consider another feature of grammar, and that is, ts meaning-making potential, Granimnar communicates memings ~ meanings of a very precise kind. Vocabulary, of course, also communicates meanings. Take this example: a ticket inspector on a train says: Ficketst Here these is Ettle or no grammar ~ in the sense of either morphology or syntax. The meaning is conveyed simply at the Fexieal, or word level, sickets. Situational factors ~ such as the passengers’ expectation that the inspector will want to check their tickets = mean that the language doesn't have to work very hard to make the meaning clear. The language of early childhood is like this; it Js essentially individual words strung together, but because it is centred in the here~and-now, it is generally not difficult to interpret! Carry! Ail gone milk? Mummy book. Where daddy? How to Teach Grammar Adule language, too, is often pared down, operating on a lexical level (he, without much grammar): al Coffee? & Please, as Mik? & Just a drop. We can formulate a rule of thumb: the more contest, the fess grammar Ticdets! is « good example of this, But imagine a situation when a person (Mills) is phoning another person (Molly) to ask a third person (Mandy) to forward some pre-booked airline tickets. In this case, Tickets! would be Inadequate, Instead, we would expect something like: Can you ask Mandy to send me the tickets that | booked last week? "This is where grammar comes in. Grammar is a process for making a speaker's or writer’s meaning clear when contextaal information is lacking, Baby talk is dine, up t a point, bur there soon comes a time when we want co express meanings for which simple words are not enough. To do this we employ rules of syntax and sules of morphology and map these on to the awaning-cnrrying words, so. that Mummy deol, for example, becomes {according to the meaning the child wants to convey): That's Mummy's book, on Mummy's got a book, ors Muminy, give me the book, Language learners have ro make do with a period of baby-like talk and reliance on contextual clues, untif they have enough grammar to express and understand @ greater variety of meanings. Depending on their vocabulary knowledge and thele resourcefulness, they can often cope surprisingly well. However, they will eventually come up against problems like thi Native SeeaxER: HOW long are you here for? LEARNER: | am here since two weeks. anive SebaKER No, I mean, how long are you staying? Leanne | am staying since two weeks, Learsers need to leur nor only what forms are possible, but what particular forms will express their particular meanings. Seen fora this perspective, grammar is a tool for making meaning. The implication for language teachers is that the learner’s attention needs to be focused not only on the forms of the language, but on the meanings these forms convey, Iwo kinds of meaning 1 © What s grammar? But what meanings do these grammatical forms convey? Thete ave at lease avo kinds of meaning and these reflect the two mais purposes of language, ‘The first $s to represent the world as we experience it, and the second is to influence how things happen in the world, specifically in our celations with other people, These purposes are called, respectively, language's representational and its interpersonal functions. In its representational role language reflects the way we perceive the world, For example, things happen in the world, and these events or processes are conveyed by (or encoded in} verbs: ‘The sun set. Many of these events and processes are initiated by people of things, which are typically encoded in nouns, and which in turn form the subject of the verb: The chitdren are piaying. And these events and processes often have an eflect on other things, also nouns: the thing or person affected 's often the abject of the verb: The dog chased the cat. ‘These events take place in particular circumstances ~ in some sime or some place or in some way ~ and ¢hese circumstances are typically encoded in adverbials: The children are playing in the garden. The sur sets at seven-thirty, ‘ The dog chased the cat playfully. Time can also be conveyed by the use of tense: ‘The children were playing in the garden. ‘The sun set at seven-thirty. Finally, events and processes ean be seen in their entitecy: The sun set, Or they ean be seen as having stages, as unfolding in time: ‘The sun was setting. The difference between these lest two examples is a difference of aspect ‘Tense and aspect can combine to form a wide range of meanings that, in English at feast, are considered important: The sun is setting. The sus has set. The sun has been setting The sun had set. ete, in role of language — its interpersonal role - is typically pinmmar to ease the tack of getting things lor ‘The second m: reflected in the way How to Teach Grammar Grammar and function There is a difference, for example, between: Tickets! Tickets, please, Can you show me your tickets? May I see your tickets? Would you mind if Thad a look at your tickets? Please is one way ~a lexical way ~ for softening the force of a command. A similar effect can be achieved by using modal verbs such as aan, may and might, Modality, then, is a grammatical means by which interpersonal meaning can be conveyed, “These grammatical caregories — subjects, objects, verbs, adverbials, tense, aspect and modality ~ are just some of the ways in which grammar is used to fine-nune the meanings we wish to express, and for which words on thelr own are barely adequate. Jt follows that ia fearing a new language learners need to see how the forms of the language match the range of meanings ~ both representational and interpersonal ~ that they need to express and understand. So far, we have talked about meaning as if the meaning of a sentence was simply a case of unpacking its words and its grammar. But look at this exchange (froma the film Clueless) between a father and the young man wbo has come to take his daughter our: FatHER: Do you drink? YyouNG MAN! No, thanks, I'm cool, eaten: V'm not offering, I'm asking IF you drink, Bo you think offer alcohol to teenage drivers taking my daughter cut? Why did the young man misunderstand the father’s question, misconstruing a request for information as an offer? Was it the words he didn't understand? Or the grammar? Or both? Clearly not, What he misunderstood was the father’s ntended meaning. He misunderstood the function of the question. ‘There is more than one meaning to the question Do pou sérink? There is the Hteral merviag = something like Ave you a drinker of alcohol? And there is the meaning that the question can have in certain contexts — that of an offer of a drink. When we process language we are not only srying to make sense of the words and the grammar, we are also trying to infer the speaker's (or writer's) intention, of, to put it another way, the function of what they we saying or writing, Ja the mid-seventies the relation between grammar and function became an important issue for teachers. Writers of Innguage teaching materials astempted to move the emphasis away from the learning of grammatical structures independent of their use, and on to learning how to function in a language, how to communicate, It would be useful, if was argued, to mateh forms with their function: Certain form-finction mate the form Mowld pow fide... 238 Ty] ave fairly easily identifiable, Por example, Sjeally used ro fimetion as an invitation or Spoken grammar and written grammar 3 © What is grammar? offer. The form If only I Badu’... commonly initiates the expression of a regret, Less clear cut is the way that the function of warning, for example, is expressed, as the Solowing examples demonstrate: You'd better not do that. i wouldn't do that, if Lwere you. Mind you don't do that. iFyou do that, you'll be fa trouble. Do that and you'll be in trouble. “Phis shows that one function can be expressed by several different forms, In the same way, one form can express a variety of Fanctions. For example, the form Ff... ill. can express a wide range of functions: #f you do that, you'll be in trouble. (warning) if you lie down, you'll feel better. (advice) if it rains, we'll take a taxi, (plan) #f you pass your driving test, I'll buy you a car. (promise) etc, Despite this lack of a one-to-one march between form and function, materials writers have felt it useful to organise at least some grammatical structures under functional labels, such as Fvaiting, Making plans, Requesting things, Making comparisons ete. There are conventional ways of doing things with language, such as making requests. But this still doesn’t help solve the problem of knowing when Do you driné? means Would you tike a drink? ox something clse. {a the end, in order to successfully matcls form and function i is necessary to be able to read clues from the context to understand the speaker's meaning Teaching grammar out of context is likely to [ead to similar misunderstandings as in the example from Clueless, a point that will be taken sp in Chapter 5. A; Great sausages, these, aren't they? a: Yes, The ingredients are guaranteed free of additives and artificial colouring, Had to laugh, though, The bloke that makes them, he was telling ne, he doesn't eat them himself, Went a ciggie? a: No, thanks. Patrons are requested to refrain fram smoking white other guests are dining ... Ir should be obvious thac cheze Is a clash of evo styles of English here: while speaker A’ talk seems to display Innguage features appropriate #0 cisttal conversation among friends, speaker B's contributions are more typical of formal written language. Thus, speaker As vocabulary choices are characteristic of speech, e.g, great, bvke, a céggie, while speaker Bs are more commonly found in writing: gratefid, requested, refiain, These differences extend to grammar, too, Speaker A omits words ({E] had ¢2 teagh), uses How to Teach Grammar Grammar syllabuses question tags (aren /eyi), and has seatences with two subjects: The bloke that pres therm, be... Phase are comanaon features of spoken grammar, Speaker B, on the other hand, uses more syneactically complex congtuuctions such as passive structures (The ingredients are guaranteed .., Papross are reguested ...) and subordinate clauses (.. while ofher guests ave dining). These we atures associated moze with written grammar, Until secently, the grammar presented to learners of English has been based entirely on written grammae This accounts for the often stilted style of many traditional coursebook dinlogues. It is only recently thar spoken granimar has been closely studied and thar arguments have been advanced {In favour of teaching it. One problem with this shift of focas is that spoken English often has strong segional and idiomatic features. These may be difficult for the learner t uaderstasd, and also inappropriate for use in the kinds of contexts in which many learners will be operating. Most learners of English as a foreign language will be using English to communicate with other non-native speakers, For the purposes of murual intelligibility the best model of English for his type of learner may be a kind of aoweral English without marked regional oF cultural features, oz without a strong bias to cither the spoken oF written mode, For most practising teachers the decision as 10 what to teach, and in what ordet, has largely been stade for them by their coursebook. Even if not working fom a coursebook, most teachers are expected to work to a programme of some sort, the most common form of which is a list of grummar iteras, It might psy to be familiar with the principles on which Such syllabuses are based, A syllabus is to teaching what an itinerary is to package tourism. Tt is a pre-planned, itemised, account of the route: if tells the teacher (and the students, if they have access to it) what is to be covered and in what order. Icis informed by two sets of decisions: © selection — that is, what is to be inchided? + grding ~ that is, in what order ave the selected items t0 be dealt wi ‘The criteria for selecting which items to put in a syllabus are essentially two: + usefulness * frequency Note thac itis not always the ease that the most frequently occurring items are the most useful, The ten most frequent words in English are the, of and, fa, a, in, that, 1, i¢ and war. Togethes they constitute neasty one-fifth of all English text. Bur you ywould be haves ro make & sentence our of them, fet alone have a conversation, And, while lexical frequency is relatively casy (0 calculate, working out the fiequency of grammatical structures is more diifeult. “As computer databases become mote sophistiested, frequency information is likely te improve. Meanwhile, syllabus designers still tend to operate by hunch. Finally; questions of usefisiness will he depenclent on the specific needs of 4 whet is grammar? the learner. For example, ifa group of learners need English mainly in order to-write in English chey will need to artend to features of written grammar such as passives, subordination, and reported speech ete. If, on the other hand, they mainly need to be able to speaks, those features will be less useful, Nevertheless, it is fair to hypothesise a cose gramme that will be usefl to all learners, whatever their needs. Here, for example, is a checklist of items (in alphabetical order) that ace shared by four current beginners’ courses articles: @/an, rhe adjectives: comparetives and superlatives be: present and past candean't, ability canfran't: coquests going to: future Basve gor. possession Fike + noun Fhe + -ing past simple possessive adjectives (my, jour, our ete.) prepositions of place and time present continuous present simple should (advice) worded (offers) will (future) Criteria for grading the syllabus ~ that is, for putting the selected items in order ~ include: + complexity * learnabilicy + weachability An item is complex if it has a number of elements: the more elements, the more complex it is, For example, a stracture such as the present perfect contimious (She as Aen reading) is more complex than the present continuous (Ste is reading), while the furure perfect continuous is more complex still (She wid? Aave Been reading). Logic suggests thar the less complex structures should be taught before the more complex ones. To terms of the number ofoperstions involved, question fers in English can be relatively simple. Take for example, this transformation Chris is English -+ ts Chris English? ‘The operation here is a simple one: to form the question simply invert the subject (Cris) and the verb (i). However, to form the question for Chris speaks English a further operation is required before sutbject—verb inversion Can take place How to Teach Gi 40 Grammar Chris speaks English ~ Chris [does] speak English Chris {does} speak English ~* Does Chris speak English? Taking s purely mechanical view of language, it would again seem Jogieal to teach simple, one-step operations before more complex ones ‘The learnability of an item was traditionally measured by its complexity: the more Single, the more leacnable, However, traditional notions o: Jearnability have been called into question recently, in the light of research into what is called the natural ordee of language acquisition, While this research is still far ftom conclusive, it seems that all Jearners acquire grammatical items in a fairly predictable order, and this happens irrespective of either their mother tongue or the order in which they are actually taught these structures. Mast students will go through a stage of saying if going for example, before they graduate to if? going, even though they may have a similar structure in their mother tongue, Similarty, earners tend to pick up Srregerlar past forms (count, sae, dongle etc.) belare regular ones (worked, lcwd, sated ete. while the third person ~s ending (she seulins, Ed seorks) is picked up later sti. The question is, should these ‘natural order’ findings affect the design of grammar syllabuses? First of all, we need to make a distinction berween what learners are posed to (input) and what they are expected to produce (output). The “natural order’ research provides ewidence of the order of ourput only, Even (we accept that the accurate production of grammatical structures seems to follow a pre-determined route, this does not mean that learners should be exposed to only those structures and in only that order. Exidence suggests that classroom learners need a varied diet of language input. It may be that the findings of the natural order research have fess to do with syllabus design dhan with reacher attitude, These findings suggest that, since some grammar tems take longer to learn than others, teachers need not insist on immediate accuracy, A third factor that might influence the selection and ordering of items on a grammatical svilsheis is an items teachability. The fact that it is easy vo demonstrate the meaning of the present continuous (I ai waking she & eviting ete.) bas meant that itis often included early in beginners’ syle buses, despite the fact shat it has a relatively low srequency of occurrence compared, say. to the present simple (F aw/&, de wrifes. The rules for the use of es (a He) on the other hand, ace difficult either to describe or to demonstrate. So, despite being among the most frequently used words in che Janguage, their formal presentation is usually delayed until a relatively advan cd level, Finally, it is worth pointing out that not all syllabuse: are, or have been, designed on a grammatical basis. With the advent of the communicative approach in the aid-1970s there was @ zeaction away fiom purely form= ged syllabuses to syllabuses that were organised according to categories of meaning, For example, functional syllabuses, as we have seen, were organised around she communicative pusposes for which language i used, such asi Fons, seseviing hing rg ete. Other angutising principles for a syllabus include tasks (to design a video Ling « cf Grammar rules 1 ® What is grammar? game and deseribe it; to wrlte'a pues and read i aloud ete.) topics (the home, travel, the envisonment, news etc.) and genres (office memos, informal leteers, business presentations, casual conversation ete), Many courses nowadays axtempt to accommednte she muli-hyered manure of language by adapting mulzi-fayered syllabuses. That is, they specify not only che grammar teas t be taught, bot inelide fonctional and topieal areas as well. In the Lengntan ditive Study Dictionary ‘rule’ is detined as: + a principle or order which guides behaviour, says how chings are to be done ete, or + the usual way char something happens With regard to grataonas, the first type of rule is often called a peeseriptive rule and the second a deseriptive rule. For many people, grammar instruc tion is traditionally associated with the teaching of the first type of rules ~ that is, prescriptions as to what should be said or written}: Da not use different to and never use different than, Always use different from, Never use the passive when you can use the active Use shai for the first person and wif for second and third persons. Second and foreign language teaching, on the other hand, is psimarily concerned with descriptive rules, that is, with generalisations about what speakers of the language actually do say rather than with what they sdouhd do, Thus: You do not normally use se with proper nouns referring to people. (Gom The COBUILD Staient’s Grommar of English) We use ated ra with the infinitive (ated f0 dalaned fo sancke ete.) to $3 something regularly happened in the past but no longer happens. {from English Grammar in Ure by Raymond Murphy) rhat Unsil recently most so-called desvriptive rofes were based on hunches and inniitions, There is tauch greater authority in descriptions of language since the advent of large computer databases of nararally occurring language, known as corpora. The following rule, for example, represents the traditional wisdom with regaed tn some and arn 1 Asa gencrad rule, use some in affirmative sentences, use any in questions and negative starements (liom English Stracture Proceive by Gordon Drammond) Statistieal evidence provided by corpora has indicated thar this rule oversimplifies the issue and that the following qualification needs to be made! iu How to Teach Grammar 42 2 Any can mean ‘ie doesn't matter which’, With this meaning, any is comfnon in affirmative sentences. (from How English Works by Michsel Swan and Catherine Walter) ‘This brings us to a further distinction that needs to be made with regard to descriptive rales, Compare, for example, rule 1 with the following: 3 ‘The primary difference between some and any ... is that some is specific, though unspecified, while any is nonspecific, That is, some implies an amount or number that is known to the speaker, This difference tends to correlate with the difference between positive and negative contexts. (fom A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Quirk et 2h.) Rale 3 may be the trath, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but most learners of English {and many teachers) would find such concepts as ipucifie, nonspecific, and unspecified difficult to untangle, Rule 1, on the other haad, makes up in simplicity for what ir lacks in truth. It is accessible to feurners and, as a rute of thumb, it will probably serve quite well until such time as the learner is ready to tackle a more truthful rule, such as rule 2. We need, therefore, to define a third category of rufe: pedagogic rules ~ rules chat rnake sense to leamers while at the same time providing chem with the means and confidence to generate language witls a reasonable chance of success. Inevitably, such confidence is often achieved at the expense of the full picture. ‘Teachers must, in the end, cater for the learner's needs rather than those of the grammarian. With regard to pedagogic rules, a further distinction may be made between rules of form and rules of use, The following is a rule of form: ‘Ty form the past simple of regular verbs, add ed to the infinitive (from A Practica’ English Grammar by Thomson and Martinet) is, on the other hand, is a rule of use: ‘The simple past tense is used ta indicate past actions or stares. (irom English Strauture Practice by Gordon Drummond) Rules of form are generally casier to formulate and are less controversial than rules of use. It is relatively easy to explain exceptions, such as carried, loved, stopped to the above rule of form for the past simple and to construct fairly watertight sub-rules chat will handle them, But the following exceptions to the rule of use are less easily accommodated into a general rule about the past simple: How did you say you spelt your name? i was wondering if you had any detective novels, W's time they went to bed, Rules of use, being heavily dependent on contextual fictors, are seldom captured in terms that are black or white. The slippery nature of rules of use can be # cause of fustration for both learners and ceachers alike, and is one uigument that supports the tenching of language through esimples (see Chaprer 4) of by means of contexts (see Chapter §) Conclusions Looking ahead | # What is grammar? in this chapter we have detined grammar as: » a description of the rules for forming sentences, including an account of the meanings that these forms convey and said that: « grammar adds meanings that are not easily inferable from the immediate context, The kinds of meanings realised by grammar are principally: * representational - that is, grammar enables us to use language to describe the world In terms of how, when and where things happen, and * interpersonal ~ that ‘s, grammer facilitates the way we interact with other people when, for example, we need to get things done using language. With regard to the relationship between form and meaning, we have seen that: * there is no one-to-one match between grammatical form and communicative function, and that, * contextual information plays a key role in our interpretation of what a speaker means. We have also seen that: * while traditional grammar is based on the written form of the language, spoken language has its own distinctive grammar. From the teaching point of view, we have looked at: * ways that grammar can be organised into a teaching syllabus according io such criteria as complexity, learnability, and teachability * ways that grammar rules can be formulated, according to whether they are prescriptive, descriptive or pedagogic, and whether they focus on form or an use, We have looked briefly at what grammar is, what it does, and how it can be organised and described. We now need to address the role of grammar in language learning. By discussing grammar syllabuses we have implied that grammar has a role, perhaps a central one, in teaching. But what justification is there for such a view? In the next chapter we explore the arquments for and against the teaching of grammar. 43 How to Teach Grammar Attitudes to 14 grammar ® The case against grammar @ — Grammar and methods ® Grammar now ® Basic principles for grammar teaching In 1622 a certain Joseph Webbe, schoolmaster and textbook writer, wrote ‘No man can cue Speedily to the mark of language that is shackted ... with grammar precepts.’ He maintained that grammar could be picked up through simply communicating: By exercise of reading, writing, and speaking ... all things belonging to Gramma, will without Iabow, and whether we will or no, thrust themselves upon us.” Webbe was one of the earliest educators to question the value of granunar instruction, but certainly not the last, In fact, no other issue has so pteoccupied theorists and practitioners as the grammar debate, and the history of fanguage teaching is essentially the history of the claims and counterclaims for and against the teaching of grammar. Differences in attitide to the role of grammar underpin differences between methods, between teachers, and between learners. It is a subject that everyone involved in language teaching and learning has an opinion on. And these opinions are often strongly and uncompromisingly stated. Here, for example, are a number of recent statements on the subject: “Phere is no doubt that « knowledge - implicit or explicit ~ of geammatical rules is essential for the mastery of a Janguage.’ (Penay Ur, a teacher trainer, and author of Grammar Practice Activities) “Phe effects of grammar teaching ... appear to be peripheral and fragile’ Gtephen Krashen, an iniluential, if controversial, applied linguist) ‘A sound knowledge of grammar is essential if pupils are going to use English creatively? (Tom Hutchinson, a coursebook writer) ‘Grammar is not very important: The majority of languages have a very complex grammar, English has litle grammar and consequently it is not Very Important to understand it, (From the publicity of a London language school) The case for grammar 2+ Why teach grammar? “Grammar is nat the havis of language acquisition, and the balance of linguistic research clearly invalidates any view to the contrary (Michael Lewis, a popular writer on teaching methods} Since so litle is known (still!) about how languages are acquired, this book will try to avoid taking an entrenched position an the issue, Rarhes, by sifting the arguments for and against, it is hopedl that readers will be in x better position to make up their own minds. Let's fisst look at the case for grammar, There are many arguments for putting grammar in the foreground in second language teaching, Here are seven of them: ‘The sentence-machine argument Part of the process of language learning must be what is sometimes called isem-learning — that is the memorisation of individual items such as words and phrases, However, there is a limit to the number of items a person can both retain and retrieve. Even travellers’ phrase books have limited usefislness ~ good for a three-week holiday, but there comes a point where we need to learn some patterns or cules to enable us to generate new sentences. That is to say, grammac. Grammar, after all, is a deseription of the regularities in a language, and knowledge of these iegulasities provides the learner with the means to generate a potentially enormous number of original sentences, The number of possible new sentences is constrained only by the vocabulary at the learner's command and his or her creativity. Grammar is a kind of ‘sentence-making machine’, Ir follows that the teaching of grammar offers the learner the means for potentially limitless Enguistic creativity, The fine-tuning argument As we saw in Chapter 1, the purpose of grammar seems to be to allow for greater subtlety of meaning than a merely lexical system can cater for, While it is possible to get a lot of commanicstive mileage out of simply stringing words and phrases together, there comes a point where ‘Me Tarzan, you Jnne’-type language fails to deliver, both in terms of intelligibility and in terms of appropriacy. This is parenlary the case for written language, which generally needs to be more explicit than spoken language. Por example, the following errors are likely to confuse the render: Last Monday night | was boring in my house. After speaking a fot time with him f thought that him attracted me. We took a wrong plane and when | saw it was very later because the plane took up. Five years ago { would want to go ta indie but in that time anybody of my riends ditin’t want to go. ‘The teaching of grammar it is argoed, serves as a corrective against the kind of ambiguity sepresented in these examples a5 Haw to Teech Grammar 16 ‘The fossilisation argument It is possible for highly motivated learners with a particular aptitode for languages to achieve aniazing levels of proficiency without any formal souds. But more often ‘pick it up as you go along’ learners reach a language plneean beyond which it is very difficult to progress. To put it technically, their linguistic competence fossilises. Research suggests that learners who recelve no Instruction seem to be at tisk of fossilising sooner than those who do receive instruction. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean taking formal lessons ~ the grammar study can be self-directed, as in this case (fom Christopher Isherwood’s autobiographical novel Christopher and his Kind); Humphrey said suddenly, ‘You sperk German so wel! ~ tell me, why don't you ever use the subjunctive mood?’ Christopher had to admit that he dida’t know how to, In the days when he had studied Germaa, he had lefe che subjunctive to be dealt with later, since it wasn't absolately essential and he was ina hurry. By this thne he could hop through the language without its aid, like an agile man with only one leg, But now Christopher set himself to master the subjunctive. Very soon, he had done $0. Proud of this accomplishment, he began showing off whenever he talked: thad it not been for him, I should never have asked myself what I would do if they were to ... ete, ete.’ Humphrey was much amused, ‘The advance-organiser argument Grammar instruction might also have a delayed effect, The researcher Richard Schmidt kept a diary of his experience learning Portuguese ia Brazil, Initially he bad envolled in formal language classes where there was a heavy emphasis on grammac. When he subsequently left these classes to travel in Brazil his Portuguese made good progress, a fact he attributed t0 the use he was making of it, However, as he interacted navurally with Brazilizas he was aware that certain features of the talk — certain grammatical items ~ seemed to catch his attention. He noticed them, It s0 happened that these items were also items he had studied in his clas What's more, being more noticeable, these tenis seemed to stick, Schmidt conctided that noticing is a prevequisite for acquisition. The gramma? teaching he had received previously, while insufficient in itself to tare him into a Ruene Portuguese speaker, had primed him to notice what stight otherwise have gone unnoticed, and hence had indirectly influenced his learning, Ie had acted as a kind of advance organiser for his later acquisition of the language, ‘The discrete item argument Language ~ any liagnage ~ seen from ‘outside’, ean seem tp be 8 gi shapeless mass, presenting an insuperable challenge for the learnes, Because grammag consists of an apparently finite set of cules, it can help to reduce the apparent enormity of che language learning task for both teachers and students, By tidying language up and organising it into neat categories Gometines called discrete items), grammarians make language digestible. 2 # Why teach grammar? A discrete item is any unit of the grammar system that is aufticiently narrowly defined to form the focus of a lesson or an exercise: ¢.g. the prevent continuous, the definite article, possessive pronouns. Verbs, on thse other hand, of sentences are not categories that are sufficiently disevete for teaching purposes, since they allow for further sub-categories, Each discrete item can be Isolated fiom the language that normally envelops it. Ir can then be slotted into a syllabus of other discrete items, and targeted for individual attention and testing, Other ways of packaging language for texching purposes are less easily organised into a syllabus. For example, communi= eative functions, such as avking fireouns, making requests, expresing regrets, and text type categories, such as narratives, instructions, phone conversations, are often thought to be too large and unculy for the purposes of lesson design. The rule-of law argument Je follows from the discrete-irem argument that, since grammar is a system of learnable rules, it lends itself to a view of teaching and learning known as transmission, A transmission view sees the role of education as the eransfer of a body of knowledge (typically in the forin of facts and cules) from those that have the knowledge to those that do sot, Such a view is gppically associated with the kind of institutionalised learning where rules, ordes, and discipline are highly valued, The need for rules, order and lspline fs particularly acute in large classes of unvaly and unmotivated teenagers ~ 8 situation that many teachers of English ace confronted with daily. In this sort of situation grammar offers the teacher a stractored system that ean be taught and tested in methodical steps, The alternative ~ allowing ferme simply to experience the language through communication — may simply out of the question, “The learner expectations argument (i) Regardless of the theoretical and ideological argunients for or against grammar teaching, many feamers come to language classes with faisly fixed expectations as ta what they will do there, These expectations may deeive from previous classtoom experience of language learning, They may’ also derive from experience of classrooms in general where (traditionally, at feast) teaching is of the transmission kind mentioned above. On the other hand, their expectations that teaching will be grammar-focused may stern from frustration experienced at trying to pick up a second language in a non classroom setting, sich as through self-study, or through immersion in the target language culeare, Such students may have enrolled in language classes specifically to ensure that the learning experience is made more efficient and systematic. The teacher who ignores this expectation by encouraging learners simply to experience fanguage is likely to frustrate and all them, v7 “Maw 19 Teach Grammar 18 The case against grammar Jase ag argaments have been marshalled in favour of grammar teaching, likewise several cases have been made against it. Here are the main ones: "The knowledge-how argument I know what is involved in riding a bike: keeping your balance, pedalling, steering by means of the handlebars and so on. This does not mean to say that T know how to ride a bike, The same analogy applies to janguage earning. It can be viewed as a body of knowledge ~ such ay vocabulary and grammat. Or it can be yiewed as a skill (or a complex set of skills). 1€ you take the innguage-is-skill point of view, then it follows that, [ke bike Fiding, you lear it by doing i, not by studying it. Leaming-by-doing is what is calfed experiential fearning, Much of the bad prese associated with intellecrual approaches to language learning — through the learning of copiows grammar rules, for example ~ stems from the failure on the part of the learner te translate rales imo skills, Ics a faitare thar accounts for this observation by Jerome K, Jerome, waiting in Tibree Men on the Burnmel about a typical English schoolboy’ French: He may be able to tell the time, or make a few guarded observations concerning the weather, No doabt he could repeat a goodly number of isvegular verbs by heart ... [But] when the proud parent takes his son to Dieppe merely to discover that the lad does not know enough to call a cab, he abuses not the systern but the innocent victim, Proponents of the ‘knowledge-how’ view might argue that what the boy needed was not so much grammac as classroom experience that simulated the kind of conditions in which he would eventually use his French, The commanication argument There is more to knowing a language than knowing its grammar. It is one thing to know that Do yeu dvind? is a present simple question, Tr is another thing to know that it can fiction as an offer. This simple observation is at the heart of what is now called the Communicative Approach, o: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). From the 1970s on, theorists have been arguing that grammatical knowledge (Linguistic competence) is merely one component of what they call communicative competence. Corsmunicative competence involves knowing how to use the gracimat and vocabulary of the language to achieve communicative goals, and knowing haw to do this ina socially appropriate way. ‘Two schools of thought emerged as to the best means of achieving the objectives of this communicative approach. Both schools placed a high premium on putting the language to communicative use, But they differed as to when you should do this. The first ~ or shallow-end approach ~ might bbe summed up as the view that you learn a language in order to use it, That is: learn the cules and then apply them in life-like communication. The more radical ling, however, is that you use a language in order to learn it, Proponents of this deep-end approach take an experiential view of learning: you learn to communicate by communicating. They argue that, by means of activities thot engage the learner in life-like communication, the grammar 2 + Why teach grammar? will be acquired virtually uncon simply a waste of valuable time, ciously, Studying the rules of grammar is Phe acquisition argument The fact that we ull Jeamned our first language withour being taught grammar rules has not escaped theorists. If it works for the first, why shouldn't it work for the second? This is an argument that has been around at least since Joseph Webbe’ day (sce page 14). It received a new impetus in the 1970s through the work of the applied linguist Stephen Krashen, Krashon makes the distinction between leaning, on the one hand, and acquisition, on the other. Leaming, according © Keushen, results fom formal instruction, typically in grammar, and is of Emited use for real communication, Acquisition, however, is a natural process: it is the process by which the first language is picked up, and by which ozher languages are picked up solely through contact with speakers of those languages. Acquisition eccuss (according to Keashen) when the learner ig exposed to the right input in a stvess-feee environment so thatinnare learning capacities are triggered, Success in a second Innguage is due to acquisition, not learning, he argues. Moreover, he claims that learnt knowledge can neve: become acquized knowledge. Kiasher's theory had an ismportant influence on language teaching practices, especially with teachers whe were disenchanted sith the ‘dril- and-repeat’ type methodology that prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s, Rejection of the formal study of grammar is central to Krashen’s ‘Natural Approach’. ‘The natural order argument Krashen’ ucquisision/learning hypothesis drew heavily on studies chat suggest there is a patural order of acquisition of grammatical items, issespective of the order in which they ane taoght (see page 10). This view derives partly from the work of the linguist Noam Chomsky Chomsky argues that humans are ‘hard-wired’ to learn languages: that is, there ase utiversal principles of grammar thae we are born with. The idea of an janate universal grammar helps explain similarities in the developmental order in first language acquisition as well es in second language acquisition. It explains why English childsen, Thal teenagers and Saudi adults all go dhrough a Dna lide fish stage before progressing to T dae? hike fish. Te also suggests that attempts to subvert the natural order by sticking rigidly to a teaditional grammar syllabus and insisting on immediate accuracy are foredoomed. In short, the natural order argument insists thar a testhouk grammar is nos, nor can ever hecome, a mental grammar. "The lexical chunks argument We have already noted the fact that language learning seems to involve an clement of item-learning. Vocabulary learning is lngely item-Tearning. So too is the retention af whole phrases, idioms, social formatac ete. in the form of what are sometimes called chunks of language. Chunks ave larger than words but often less than sentences, Here are some common examples 19 How to Teach Grammar 20 excuse me? 80 far so good what on earth? have a nice day be that as it may if you ask me not on your life here you are Acqttiting chunks of language not only saves the learner planning time in the cot-and-thrust of real interaction, but seems to play a role in language development too, It has been argued thar many of the expressions that young children pick up, like adiegone, or gimme (as in gimme dhe badd, ace learned as chunks and only later unpacked into their component pacts. Once uapacked, new combinations, such as give br eda care to merge. Tt has been argued thue this process of analysing previously stored chunks plays an important role in first language acquisition, How much of second ixaguage uequisition involves item-feurning as opposed to rule-learning is still sa open question. Nevertheless, in secent years there has been a growing recognition of the importance of word- and chaniclearsing, such that some writers have proposed a lexieal approach to reaching, in contrast to the traditional emphasis on sentence grammar. Among other things, a lexical approach promotes the learning of frequently used and fairly forrwulaic expressions (Have you ever been. ? Would you like 2.2) rather than the stady of rather abstract grammatical ewegories such 1s the present perfect or conditionals, ‘The learner expectations argument (2) While many learners come to language classes in the expectation that at least some of the time they will be studying the grammar of the language, there are many others who maay already have had years of grammat study at school and are urgently in aced of a chaace to put this knowledge to work, Questionnaires of adult students in general English courses almost inwaciably idenity ‘conversacton’ as a high priotiey, and these statemettts (from Looking at Language Classrooms, Cambridge University Press) by a range of EFL studente studying in Britain are typical: ‘In Germany there's more homework, grammar exeecises, and things like that. Heve, [ thinks you've got more chance to speak aud therefore fearn the language? ‘Sometimes, speaking and things ike that help a lot, because if you don't spewk English, and just do writing exercises, it's no good.’ “L like having conve not inch fin tions because, yes, grammar is important, but i's he learner expectation argument cuts both ways: some learners demand geonomnn,, others just want to talk, I's the teacher's job to respond sensitively: to these expectations, to provide @ balance where possible, and even co negotiate a compromise. Grammar and methods 208 Why teach grammar? Before attempting to bring the grammar debate up 10 date, and to draw some conchtsions from recent research evidence, it may pay to briefly sketch in the way attitudes to grammar teaching have influenced the ebb and flow of different teaching methods. In the fast century the architects of language teaching methods have been preoccupied with two basic design decisions concerning grammar: + Should the method adhere to a grammar syilabus? + Should the rufes of grammar be made explicit? The various ways they answered these questions help distinguish the different methods from each other. What follows is 2 potted history of methods in the light of their approach to these issues. Grammar~Translation, as its name suggests, took grammar as the starting point for instruction. Grammar“Transiation courses followed a grammar syllabus and lessons typically began with an explicit statement of the rale, followed by exercises involving translation into and out of che mother tongue. ‘The Direct Method, which emerged in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, challenged the way thet GrammarTransladon focused exclusively on the written language. By claiming to be a ‘natucil’ method, the Direct Method prioritised oral slclls, and, while following a ayliabus of grammar structures, rejected explicit grammar teaching. The learners, it was supposed, picked up the grammar in much the same way as children pick ap the granumar of their mother tongue, simply by being immersed in language. Andiotingualism, x largely North American invention, stayed frithfd to the Direct Method belief in the primacy of specch, bot was even more strict in its rejection of grammar teaching, Audiolingualism derived its theoretical base from behaviourist peychology; which considered language as simply form of behaviour, ro be learned through the formation of correct babi Habit formation was a process in which the application of rales played no part. The Audivlingual syllabus consisted of a graded list of sentence patterns, which, alshough nor necessarily labelled as such, were gens in origin, ‘These patterns formed the basis of patters-practice deills, che distinguishing fearure of Ancilingas eassnony practice, Noam Chamsky’s claim, in the late 1950s, chat language ability is not habituated behaviour but an innate human capacity, prompted a reassess ment of deill-and-repeat type teaching practices. The view that we are equipped at birth for language acquisition fed, us we suv on page 19, 70 Krashen’s belief that formal inseruction was unnecessary. His Approach does away with both a grammar syllabus and explicit rale-giving. Instead, learners are exposed to large doses of comprehensible input. 1noace processes convert this input into output, in time. Like the Direct Method, the Natural Approach attcmprs te replicate the conditions of first Jangoage acquisition. Grammar, according to this scenavio, is irrelevant Pal Teach Grammar ‘The development, in the 2970s, of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was motivated by developments in the new science of socio~ Bnguistics, and the belief that communicative competence consists of more than simply the knowledge of the rules of grammar (see sbove, page 18). Nevertheless, CLT, in its shaflow-end version at least, did not reject gram~ mar teaching out of hand. In fact, grammar was still the main component of the syllabus of CLT courses, even if it was dressed up in functional labels: asking the way, talking aboue yourself, making future plans ete, Explicit attention to grammar rules was not incompatible with communicative practice, either, Chomsky, after all, had claimed that language was rule~ governed, and this seemed to suggest to theorists that explicit rule-giving may have a place after all, This belief was around at about the time that CLT was being developed, and was readily absorbed into it, Grammar rules reappeared in coursebooks, and grammar teaching re-emerged in classrooms, often, it must be said, at the expense of communicative practice. Deep-end CLT, on the other hand, rejected both grammar-based syllabuses and grammar instruction. A lending proponent of this view was N.S. Prabhu, a teacher of English in southern India. In his Bangalore Project, he attempted to replicate natural acquisition processes by having studencs work through a syllabus of tasks for which no formal grammar instruction was supposedly needed nor provided, Successful completion of the task - for example, following a map — was the lesson objective, rather than successful application of a rule of grammar. The Bangalore Project was the predecessor of what is now known as task-based learning. ‘Task-based learning has more recently relaxed its approach to grammat, largely through recognition of the value of a focus on form (see below, page 24), "To summarise the story so far: to the first of the questions posed above (Should she method adore to a grammatical syllabus?) most approaches t© language teaching up until the 1970s have answered firmly Yer, The actual form of the syllabus differed considerably from method to methad, but, til such organising categories as functions or tasks were proposed, sylla~ buses were essentially grammar-based. On the question of the expliciness of rule teaching there is a clear divide between those methods that seek to mizror the processes of first language acquisition ~ such as the Direct Method and the Natural Approach ~ and those ~ such as Grammar~Translation that see second language acquisi- tion asa more intellectual process. The former methous reject grammar instruction, while the latter accept a role for conscions rule-learning. Finally, ever in methods where rules are made explicit, there may be & different emphasis with regard to the way the learner arrives at these rules. Jn some approaches, such as Grammar-Translation, the rules are simply presented to the learner, who then gocs on to apply them through the study and manipulation of examples (a deductive approach: see Chapter 3) Other approaches, inchiding the shallow-end form of the communicative - appronch, often requive the learners Srst to stady examples and work the rules out for themselves (an inductive approach: see Chapter 4). 22