Teaching Functional Grammar in Isolation: Is It Necessary?

As a language component, grammar plays a significant role in language pedagogy particularly in EFL context as Celce-Murcia (1991: 459) points out that grammar teaching is part of language instruction. Therefore, some linguists have taken grammar instruction into account in English syllabuses in order to improve students accuracy in English. So far, as the Grammar Translation Method applies, teachers have laid their grammar instruction on traditional grammar that gives more emphasis on forms instead of meanings and use. Some linguists argue the effectiveness of this type of instruction since it does not contribute to students communicative competence with accuracy (e.g. Andrews et al. 2004: 39). A more communicative grammar instruction, therefore, is introduced to fill in the gap. By integrating grammar instruction and contexts of the grammatical forms, students are expected to gain a better understanding of the forms and use them in communication tasks. However, a question arises on how to integrate these: through other language courses or a separate grammar course. Several educators argue that by integrating grammar instruction into a communicative language course, it saves time because the grammatical form taught will only be the one related to the task and it improves students communicative competence as well as their accuracy. Nevertheless, I believe that EFL students, particularly those at the intermediate and advanced levels, still require a separate functional grammar course to help them gain a better understanding of grammatical forms so that they will be able to use them in communication tasks with accuracy. To analyze the problem, there should be a clear definition on what is meant by grammar and teaching grammar. According to Brown (2001), grammar constitutes a set of rules that arrange words in a sentence. This definition is probably what most teachers have taken for granted as a basis of (traditional) grammar instruction in their classrooms. Ellis (2006: 84), furthermore, points out that teaching grammar incorporates pedagogical techniques used to explain particular grammatical forms in order to gain an understanding of the grammatical knowledge and to use these forms contextually. From Ellis definition, it is obvious that the purpose of teaching grammar is not only to gain knowledge of grammatical aspects, but also to use them in appropriate contexts. Teachers, therefore, are supposed to teach grammatical forms and rules, and then relate them to meaning and use for the specific communication tasks that students will perform. There have been several grammatical models applied for grammatical instruction in EFL classrooms (ibid: 86), but the focus of this discussion will be on two models of grammar: the Structural and Functional Grammars. The more widely-used model is Structural Grammar or what linguists refer to as traditional grammar. In this traditional model, students are exposed to grammatical forms (syntax) and less emphasis is given to meanings (semantics) and use (pragmatics) (Dik and Hengeveld, p?). This model has become one of the underlying principles in Grammar Translation Method which has until very recently been so stalwart among many compelling approaches (Brown, 2001). To improve and assess students grammar competence, teachers rely on drilling and constructed exercises. Many teachers prefer this type of exercises due to the ease of assessment and availability of grammar exercise books. Though Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach has been introduced, some educators, in fact, still use this traditional model in their grammar classrooms. In China, for example, a large number of English classrooms still adopt the traditional grammar-oriented instruction (Yang, 2007: 27). Another research investigating teachers beliefs about language teaching and learning also shows that among other beliefs, such as the purpose of language learning or beliefs about learners, the teachers

most commonly belief lies on the role of grammar and grammar teaching in language classrooms, and this is particularly true for teachers of South East Asian countries (Richards, Gallo, and Renandya, n.d: 3). These findings imply that traditional grammar instruction still plays a dominant role in language pedagogy, especially in Asia. There are some reasons underlying teachers preference toward this traditional grammar pedagogy from their perspective. The most common reason is to improve students accuracy in using English. To support this argument, White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta (1991, cited in Sugiharto, 2006: 24) conducted a research that compares students syntactic accuracy performance between one group with form-based grammar instruction and the other without grammar instruction. It turns out that the formoriented group outperforms the non-instruction group. Another reason lies in the teachers perception about the traditional grammar instruction. They assume that students will not be able to gain the knowledge and the ability to use the grammar item in communication tasks if they do not teach grammatical forms and drill them (Li and Song, 2007: 63); (Farrell, et al., 2005: 6). Teachers particularly those who have used the communicative approach admit that their students still communicate in English with relatively poor accuracy (Richards, Gallo, and Renandya, n.d: 3). These teachers assumption may be related to the strong position of the Grammar Translation Method that has influenced teachers methods and beliefs toward teaching grammar. External factors are also responsible for this form-focused method of instruction in classrooms. The pressure of vocabulary and grammar-oriented exams that are used to assess students English proficiency has reinforced teachers belief in the need to teach grammatical forms in classrooms (Yang, 2007: 28). These factors may all contribute to the implementation of traditional form-focused grammar instruction in EFL classrooms. Many linguists, however, have turned their attention to another type of grammatical model, the functional grammar. This model views grammar as a set of rules for arranging words in a sentence as well as a resource for creating meaning by means of wording (Matthiessen and Halliday, 1997, ). The latter view refers to the use of texts (discourse) that contain sentences where grammatical forms apply. Therefore, to analyze the grammatical form of a sentence, it has to include the text or discourse where the sentence appears. This means that the sentence where the grammatical form applies can only be understood if the context where the sentence exists is taken into account. In other words, the focus of this functional grammar is not merely on grammatical forms, but also on the meanings that are reflected by grammatical forms for the purpose of communication (Ellis, 2006: 86). He claims that teaching grammar can be more effective if the teaching of grammatical forms is incorporated into the context in which the grammatical forms will be used. The following table provides a clear distinction between traditional grammar and functional grammar to gain a better understanding of the differences. TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONAL sentence text word level word level but usually with large chunks written language spoken, written, multimodal correctness not consider context correctness related to context discrete grammar exercises grammar within study of genre how contributes to meaning

Tabel 1. Differences between traditional and functional grammars. (Antenucci, n.d.)

Dick and Hangeveld (), furthermore, argues that from functional grammar perspective, language competence does not only cover the ability to understand grammatical forms (grammatical competence), but also the ability to use these grammatical forms for communicative purpose. Hymes (1972, cited in ibid, p?) calls this model of instruction as communicative competence. This implies that when learning grammar, students are expected to be able to understand the grammatical forms and use them in communication activities with accuracy. Several studies have proved the effectiveness of this functional grammar. Li and Songs (2007: 62) study proves the effectiveness of integrating grammar into productive skills, compared to teaching productive skills without grammar instruction. A similar finding is also found in Stubbs (1995 cited by Hunter, 1996) study concerning students writing proficiency. Other studies compare the effectiveness between traditional and functional grammars (sorry Gai, I havent found it) Due to its effectiveness, many English educators have attempted to integrate grammar instruction into other language courses, such as a speaking or writing course. Ellis (2006: 101) introduces two types of grammar-integrated instruction: planned focus on form and incidental focus on form. Focus on form in this context refers to a meaning-focused instruction emphasizing on a grammatical form which is used in a communication task (ibid: 101). If the topic of the task in a writing course is writing a process essay, for example, teachers can introduce the students with the grammatical forms related to the immediate communication task, such as imperative sentences or passive voice prior to the task so that it is expected that students will have no difficulties in using these types of forms while accomplishing the task. This is what Ellis calls planned focus on form. The other type, incidental focus on form, is applied on certain occasions when students encounter problems with certain grammatical forms as the task activity proceeds. Hence, teachers will teach imperative sentences or passive voice only if students have grammatical problems with the task, or it is possible that teachers explain other grammatical forms that may not directly related with the task, but that become students common problem. Some educators argue that this grammar-integrated instruction can save teachers as well as students time in teaching and learning grammar since it is focused only on certain grammatical forms related to the communication task and they can apply them directly. However, this instruction is not actually time-saving. It is often the case when teachers apply the planned focus on form approach, at the same time they will still have to use the incidental approach because students often face with some grammatical problems while accomplishing the task. Consequently, little time is allocated for the course instruction itself. Teachers, therefore, are struggling with time allocation management between the grammar instruction and the integrated-language course. Furthermore, since one of the objectives of this integrated instruction is to improve students accuracy, teachers will have to make a great effort to fulfill it. Most of the time, grammar instruction dominates the classroom activities, instead of the discussion of the course itself. Eventually, since integrating grammar instruction into the intended language course has interrupted the flow of the course, the main objectives of the course will be hard to achieve. Teachers must be aware that accuracy is not the only objective of the course, so they should give fair proportion of the materials in order that the course objectives, including accuracy, can be accomplished.

To avoid these problems to happen, there should be a separate grammar course to give plenty of time to teachers to explain grammatical forms with contexts and design the relevant communication tasks. Similarly, students will benefit more time to understand a variety of grammatical forms and use it accurately in communication tasks that are focused intensively at a single grammatical form. Through this separate grammar course, it is expected that the grammar course objectives will be relatively betterachieved. Due to time constrains, it is almost difficult to cover all aspects of grammar in one grammar course, so careful selection of which grammar aspects to discuss is essential. Ellis (ibid: 214) stresses the importance of careful selection of which areas of grammar to be discussed in direct instruction to give learners opportunities to grasp the form, to internalize it, and to use it accurately in communication activities. To help teachers design the syllabus for grammar instruction, Celce-Murcia (1991: 465) elaborates on the six variables, classified into learner and instructional variables, which determine the importance of form-focused grammar instruction in language teaching.
Less important Children Beginning Preliterate Educational Background No formal ed. Instructional Variables Skill Listening, reading Register Informal Need/Use Survival Learner Variables Age Proficiency Level Focus on Form Adolescents Intermediate Semiliterate Some formal ed. Speaking Consultative Vocational More important Adults Advance Literate Well-educated Writing Formal Professional

Figure 1. Variables that determine the importance of grammar (Celce-Murcia, 1991)

The figure shows that from the learner variables perspective, the older the students are, the more important the teaching of grammatical forms is. The same principle also applies for higher proficiency level and educational background variables. In terms of instructional variables, teaching grammatical forms is more required for improving writing skills, particularly in formal and professional contexts. This guideline will be very useful to decide when grammar instruction should focus on forms than on communication activities, and vice versa. It is obvious that functional grammar instruction is particularly beneficial for learners to understand grammatical forms and be able to use them in communication activities with accuracy. Without neglecting some linguists idea of integrating instruction into other language courses, time constrains and teaching objectives should be taken into account when using this integration approach. The time allocated for grammar instruction will be strictly limited since the main objective of the course is for the specific proficiency related to the course instead of on accuracy. Hence, when teaching functional grammar in isolation, rather than trying to teach the whole of grammar, teachers can selectively choose which grammar items to cover in this grammar course, so that the instruction can be effectively focused on items that are more closely related to the required communication tasks. Teaching functional grammar in isolation, thus, is definitely required to give teachers as well as learners plenty of time to understand the grammatical forms and produce them in communication tasks. What is important, however, is that teachers have to consider the learners needs and their learning style in order to decide the most appropriate method for teaching grammar in classrooms.

Bibliography Andrews, Richards, et al. 2004. The Effect of Grammar Teaching (Syntax) in English on 5 to 16 Year Olds' Accuracy and Quality in Written Composition. Research Evidence in Education Library.. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. 1-14. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/research/ResearchPaperSeries/EnglishGrammar(SC).pdf Antenucci, R. n.d. Introduction to Functional Grammar. Powerpoint slides. Slide 14. www.decs.sa.gov.au/curric/files/links/Functional_model_language.ppt Brown, H., Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd Ed. New York: Longman Celce-Murcia, M. 1991. Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-480 http://www.dzibanche.biblos.uqroo.mx/hemeroteca/tesol%20quarterly/1967%202002%20fulltext/vol%2 025%203.pdf

DIK, SIMON AND HENGEVELD K., .. THE THEORY OF FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR: THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE.
Ellis, R. 2006. Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective.TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83107. http://www.twu.ca/library/tqd 2008/vol 40 1.pdf

FARRELL, T. ET AL., 2005. CONCEPTIONS OF GRAMMAR TEACHING : A CASE STUDY OF TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES. TESL-EJ, 9.HTTP://WWW.CC.KYOTO-

SU.AC.JP/INFORMATION/TESL-EJ/EJ34/A9.HTML
Hunter, A. 1996. A New Grammar that has clearly Improved Writing. English Journal, 85, 102107. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=10421808&Fmt=3&clientId=44687&RQT=309&VName= PQD Li Zhong-guo and Song Min-yan, 2007. The Relationship between Traditional English Grammar Teaching and Communicative Language Teaching. US-China Education Review, 4, 62-65. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2b/65/b7.pdf Matthiessen, C. and Halliday, M.A.K. Systemic Functional Grammar: A First Step into the Theory. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1c/ 2e/4e.pdf Richards, Jack. C., Gallo, Patrick B., Renandya, Willy A. n.d. Exploring Teachers Beliefs and the Processes of Change. A paper presented at SEAMEO, 1-17. Singapore: SEAMEO-Regional Language Center

http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/exploring-teacher-change.pdf Sugiharto, S. 2006. Why We Should Teach Grammar: Insights for EFL Classroom Teachers. Indonesian JELT, 1, 22-31 http://books.google.com/books?hl=id&lr=&id=mfdXnN_ooKEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA22&dq=%22why+we+ should+teach+grammar%22&ots=FChS95iH7a&sig=nytUUZaGABlBNQiVPAd5n97rB0#PPA103,M1 Yang, Xiang-ju. 2007. Negative effect of instruction on L2 learners pragmatic development. Sino-US English Teaching, 4, 25-28. http://www.linguist.org.cn/doc/su200710/su20071006.pdf

From http://link-to-english.blogspot.com/2010/11/teaching-functional-grammar-in.html