Teaching grammar as a liberating force Richard Cullen
The idea of grammar grammar as a ‘liberating ‘liberating force’ comes from a paper by Henry Widd Widdows owson on (19 (1990 90)) in whic which h gram gramma marr is depic depicte tedd as a resou resourc rcee whic which h libe libera rate tess the the language user from an over-dependency on lexis and context for the expression of meani meaning ng.. In this this paper paper,, I consi consider derth thee impl implic icat atio ions ns for for second second lang langua uage ge teac teachi hing ng of the notion of grammar as a liberating force, and identify three key design features which which,, I prop propos ose, e, need need to be prese present nt in any gram gramma marr produc producti tion on task task in whic which h this this notion is given prominence. These are: learner choice over which grammatical structures to use; a process of ‘grammaticization’ where the learners apply grammar grammar to lexis; lexis; and opport opportuni unitie tiess to make make compar compariso isons ns and notice notice gaps gaps in their their use of grammar. I then discuss, with practical examples, types of grammar task which exhibit these features. These tasks all derive from traditional E LT practice, but have been revitalized revitalized to support support an approach approach to teaching teaching grammar which emphasizes its liberating potential. In an essay entitled ‘Grammar, and nonsense, and learning’, Widdowson The liberating potential of grammar (1990: 86) wrote: . . . grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force: it free freess us from from a depe depend nden ency cy on cont contex extt an and d a pure purely ly lexi lexica call cate catego gori riza zati tion on of reality.
Given iven that that many many lear learne ners rs—a —and nd teac teache hers rs—t —ten end d to view view gram gramma marr as a set set of restrict restrictions ionson on whatis what is allowed allowed anddisa and disallo llowed wed in languag languagee use—‘a use—‘a linguis linguistic tic straitjacket’ in Larsen-Freeman’s words (2002: 103)—the conception of grammar as something that liberates rather than represses is one that is worth investigating investigating further. further. In this paper, paper, I first explore e xplore the implications implications of this this stat statem emen entt for for our our unde unders rsta tand ndin ing g of the the na natu ture re of gram gramma marr an and d the the role role it plays in communication, and then go on to discuss how this understanding understanding might inform approaches to teaching teaching grammar in second language classrooms. Widdow iddowso son n’s conce concepti ption on of gramm grammar ar as a liber liberati ating ng force force may be a strik striking ing image, but what he meant by it is not contentious. Without any grammar, the learner is forced to rely exclusively on lexis and the immediate context, combined with gestures, intonation and other prosodic and non-verbal non-verbal features, features, to communicate his/her intended meanings. For example, the three lexical items ‘dog eat meat’ could be strung together in that order to
we were going to cook for dinner)’, provided there is enough shared context between the interlocutors—the empty plate, the shared knowledge of the dog, the meat and our plans for dinner—to allow the utterance to be interpreted correctly. With insufficient contextual information, the utterance is potentially ambiguous and could convey a range of alternative meanings, such as: 1 The
dog is eating the meat. 2 A dog must have eaten the meat. 3 Dogs eat meat. It is grammar that allows us to make these finer distinctions in meaning—in the above examples, through the use of the article system, number, tense, and aspect. It thereby frees us from a dependency on lexis and contextual clues in the twin tasks of interpreting and expressing meanings, and generally enables us to communicate with a degree of precision not available to the learner with only a minimal command of the system. In this sense, grammar is a liberating force.
Notional and attitudinal meanings in grammar
The above examples illustrate how grammar is used to indicate differences in ‘notional meaning’ (Batstone 1995)—that is differences in semantic categories, such as time, duration, frequency, definiteness, etc. The liberating power which grammar gives us—to transcend the limitations of lexis and context in the communication of meaning—is also deployed in expressing attitudinal meanings, such as approval, disapproval, politeness, abruptness, and social intimacy or distance, etc. (Batstone op. cit., LarsenFreeman op. cit.). The following example from Batstone (ibid.: 197) illustrates how a writer might deliberately contrast two tenses to indicate approval and disapproval towards the respective subjects of the verb: Smith (1980) argued that Britain was no longer a country in which freedom of speech was seriously maintained. Johnson (1983), though, argues that Britain remains a citadel of individual liberty. Commenting on this example, Batstone (ibid.: 198) suggests that the use of the past tense signals that Smith’s argument is no longer worthy of current interest . . . it is (in two significant senses) passe´, whereas the contrasting use of the present tense in the following sentence shows that Johnson’s argument is held to be of real and continuing relevance. The writer is here using grammar to signal something about his attitude to the ideas he is discussing. Centraltothenotionofgrammarasaliberatingforceistheviewofgrammar as a communicative resource on which speakers draw to express their intended meanings at both levels—the notional and the attitudinal. As such the use of a particular grammatical structure is a matter of speaker choice. As language users, we may wish to be very clear about what we want to say, or deliberately ambiguous, or non-committal. We may wish to sound polite,
according to the context in which we are operating. To do all these things, speakers use the linguistic resources which the grammar of the language makes available to them: grammar is thus at the service of the language user, and the teaching of grammar—especially if we wish to present grammar to our learners as something which is liberating and empowering—should aim to reflect this.
Focus on form and output tasks
The kind of liberating force attributed to grammar so far lies in its intrinsic nature—as a resource to enhance power and precision in the communication of meaning. However, there is another sense in which grammar might be termed a liberating force, and that is in its potential as a focus of second language instruction to drive forward learning processes and so help to liberate the learner from the shackles of the ‘intermediate plateau’. There is a considerable body of evidence in second language acquisition research (see, for example, Long 2001; Ellis 2005) to suggest that a focus on form—that is, a focus on specific grammatical forms as they arise in contexts of language use—is an essential ingredient ‘to raise the ultimate level of attainment’ (Long op. cit.: 184). In particular, second language researchers such as Swain (1995) and Skehan (2002) have argued strongly that output tasks which are both system-stretching, in that they push the learners to use their full grammatical resources, and awareness-raising, in the sense that they allow learners to become aware of gaps in their current state of interlanguage development, are crucial elements in a pedagogy designed to provide the required focus on form. One of the practical implications of the notion of teaching grammar as a liberating force, therefore, would be in the design of production tasks which challenge learners grammatically, and also lead them to notice gaps in their knowledge of the target language system.
Three design features From the foregoing discussion, I propose that an approach to teaching in teaching grammar grammar as a liberating force should include the following three elements: as a liberating force 1 Learner choice Given that the deployment of grammar in communication invariably involves the speaker or writer in making a free and conscious choice (notwithstanding the fact that having chosen a particular grammatical structure there are conventions to observe regarding its acceptable formation), the first element is that the learner must have a degree of choice over the grammatical structures they use, and deploy them as effectively as they can to match specific contexts and meet specific communicative goals. In this respect, an emphasis on grammar as a liberating force would favour a process rather than a product approach to teaching grammar (Batstone 1994; Thornbury 2001), whereby learners are not compelled to use a particular grammatical structure which has been preselected for them—it would be difficult to conceive of grammar being genuinely a liberating force if they were—but rather they choose from their stock of grammatical knowledge to express the meanings they wish to convey.
2 Lexis to grammar If grammar liberates the language user by enabling him/her to transcend the limitations of telegraphic speech (using lexical items alone), there should be a progression from lexis to grammar both in the way language andmaterials are presented to learners, and in the languagewe expect them to produce. A grammar production task would typically require the learners to apply grammar to samples of language in which the grammar has been reduced or simplified, as typically found in notes of a meeting or a newspaper headline, where the meaning content is conveyed primarily through lexical items. Such tasks, where the learners are in effect asked to map grammar on to lexis, involve a process known variously as grammaticization (Batstone 1994) or ‘grammaring’ (Thornbury 2001). By engaging in this kind of activity, learners experience the process of using their grammatical resources to develop the meaning potential contained in the lexical items and express a range of meanings which the words alone could not convey. Such a process is not dissimilar to the processes involved in first language acquisition whereby the child moves from communication through telegraphic utterances involving strings of lexical items to the gradual deployment of morphemes and function words. It is not, however, a process promoted in traditional approaches to grammar teaching such as the presentation–practice–production format, where the learners are typically asked to move in the opposite direction—they begin with a preselected grammatical structure, and then have to slot lexis into it. 3 Comparing texts and noticing gaps The third element in teaching grammar as a liberating force derives from well-established principles of task-based pedagogy (for example, Willis 1996; Skehan op. cit.) and relates to the importance of allowing the learners to focus on grammatical forms which arise from their communicative needs, and in particular as a result of noticing gaps in their own use of grammar. These gaps are noticed through a process of comparing their output on a language production task with that of other learners or more proficient users, for example, a sample text, or a written transcript of native speakers doing the same task (Willis op. cit.). The focus on grammar is thus ‘reactive’ rather than proactive (Doughty and Williams 1998), because it arisesfrom thespecific communicativeneeds whichthelearners discoverin theprocesses of doingthetask, reviewingtheir performanceand comparing it with others. In this way learners experience the liberating potential of grammar, not just to help them express their meanings in a particular activity with greater precision, but over time, through a sustained programme of comparing and noticing ‘gaps’ and differences, to enable them to develop their proficiency and sensitivity in the target language to increasingly more advanced levels.
Task types for teaching grammar as a liberating force
Four task types which exemplify these different elements are discussed below. At the outset, I should point out that I do not claim any originality for them, since they all involve classroom activities which have been in use for many years, particularly as exercises to develop writing skills. Indeed some, I would suggest, have partially fallen into disuse. What I am aiming to do here is to show how fairly standard techniques, which have stood the
test of time, can be revitalized and adapted to support a more contemporary approach to teaching grammar. Task type 1: Grammaticization tasks In these tasks, the learners use their grammatical resources to develop and expand information presented in the form of notes in which grammatical features are reduced or even omitted altogether. The example in Figure 1 shows a grammaticization task using newspaper headlines, based on an idea in Thornbury 2001. The three elements are clearly present in this type of task: first, the learnershave a free choice over which grammatical features to use to expand the headlines, either individually or in consultation with others; second, they start with lexis and add grammar to it, as well as any additional lexis that may be required to develop and elaborate the story; and third, after doing this, they compare their texts with one another and with the original paragraph in the newspaper, and in this way naturally focus on and discuss some of the differences between their use of grammar and that of the original text, as well as differences in content. They can also be asked to look for any patterns in the way grammar is used in the opening paragraphs in all four stories, for example in the use of the present perfect tense, relative clauses, clauses in apposition, and the use of the passive.
figure 1
Grammaticization task using newspaper headlines. (Headlines 1, 3, and 4 from The Times, London, 31 August 2007; headline 2 from the Ashford Express, Kent Messenger Group, 16 August 2007.)
Other grammaticizationtasks, suitablefor higher-level students—academic writing classes, for example—could include the use of bullet points taken from PowerPoint presentations prepared by the students themselves. These would be used to ‘cue’ the writing of short paragraphs and summaries, thereby giving practice in essay writing skills. Task type 2: Synthesis tasks Synthesis tasks (Graver 1986) are variations on grammaticization tasks and take the form of exercises which start with a short text, consisting of a string of short,non-complex sentenceswhichthelearnersarerequired to combine in some way so as to reduce the number of sentences and create a more natural piece of text. The technique is a traditional sentence combination task done at text rather than sentence level, and requires the use of various grammatical devices needed for the construction of complex sentences, such as relative clauses, purpose clauses and subordination, as well as cohesive devices such as linking words. An example is given in Figure 2.
Again it will be seen that the task combines the three elements noted above: the learners have choice over the grammatical devices they think are needed to reconstruct the text in the most effective way, drawing on their own knowledge of the language. They compare their versions with one another and with the teacher’s own version and so have the opportunity to expand their own knowledge. Finally, although the task may not, strictly speaking, move from lexis to grammar, it certainly moves from a text where the grammar has been artificially reduced or simplified to one in which it is more elaborated. The task also develops sensitivity to writing style and what makes a coherent, fluent narrative.
figure 2
Synthesis task (adapted from an idea in Graver 1986)
Task types 3 and 4: dictogloss and picture composition These two task types are variations on the same procedure, in that they require the students to reconstruct an original ‘text’ by supplying more grammar to it, and then comparing their new versions with those of others. In dictogloss, or grammar dictation (Wajnryb 1990), learners have to listen to and take notes on a short text read aloud to them, before trying to reconstruct the text from their notes. Dictogloss clearly meets all three criteria for designing tasks which emphasize the liberating nature of grammar. The students move from lexis to grammar as they strive to grammaticize the notes they made while listening to the text; they choose from their own grammatical resources while reconstructing the text; and finally they compare their versions with one another in order to improve and refine them (Thornbury 1997), before comparing them with the original version. A particular advantage of dictogloss is that the texts selected (or specially written, as in Wajnryb’s 1990 book) can be of any type—descriptive, narrative, argumentative, etc.—depending on the aims of the lesson and needs of the learners. The example in the Appendix is a paragraph from a Wikipedia entry about the Hubble Telescope, which, if used with an upper-intermediate level academic
writing class, perhaps as part of a unit on space exploration, could lead to a focus on various grammatical features such as the use of the present perfect tense in descriptive texts of this kind, structures used with superlative forms of adjectives, and word suffixes (astronomy, astronomer, astronomical). Picture composition is another traditional technique used in teaching writing which lends itself to this approach to teaching grammar. In order to provide for the ‘lexis to grammar’ dimension, the sequence of pictures used would need to be accompanied by key words (provided either by the teacher or ‘negotiated’ with the whole class). In addition, some language can be built into the picture sequence itself, as is typically found in a cartoon strip. The procedure shown in Figure 3 begins by following a fairly traditional sequence (Steps 1 to 3) based on a similar task found in Ur 1988 (see the example in the Appendix), but adopts a more structured procedure for focusing on form at Steps 4 to 7, one which is more consistent with the task-based cycle of teaching described by Willis (op. cit.). I have made the element of comparing texts deliberately less direct in this task, in order to avoid giving the students the impression that the stories which they composed in Step 1 and edited in Step 4 are less worthy or interesting than the other groups’ stories or the teacher’s ‘version’, presented at Step 6. The teacher’s version in fact is only a composite of the individual group versions (and it is important that it is presented as such) and is available as a sourcefor comparisonat the end ofthe process whenthe students correct any errors in their own texts.
figure 3
A procedure for a picture composition task
Conclusion
In this paper I have identified three elements which I see as being central to an approach to teaching grammar which emphasizes its role as ‘a liberating force’ (as defined in Widdowson’s essay), and have gone on to show how these elements can be incorporated into the design of grammar production activities in the E FL classroom. As has been pointed out, the approach which these activities exemplify is task-based in design, in that the focus on form comes after a freer activity in which the learners use whatever language resources they can muster: the teaching progression is thus from fluency to accuracyrather than vice versa. The activities also follow a process approach to teaching grammar, in which grammatical items are notselected and presented in advance for learners to use, but rather grammar is treated as ‘a resource which language users exploit as they navigate their way through discourse’ (Batstone 1994: 224). Gaps in their knowledge are noticed later through the process of matching and comparing so that work can begin on trying to fill them. There are two further observations about the task types presented here which need to be made. Firstly, given the scope of this paper, I have looked only at types of task which require learners to produce language and have not discussed receptive grammar tasks designed to raise awareness of the various notional and attitudinal meanings which can be expressed by grammar. Such tasks would involve considering the effects created by changing some of the grammatical featuresused in a text, or asking learners to make grammatical choices in a given text, for example, between active and passive verb forms, and then comparing their choices with the original text. Such awareness raising activities would also have an important role in teaching grammar as a liberating force since they emphasize the notion of learner choice in the use of grammar. Secondly, all the task types presented have involved the learners in the creation of written texts, and are derived from fairly standard guided writing tasks. This emphasis on writing is deliberate: writing is generally done with more care and attention to grammatical accuracy than speaking, while having a written text to study and compare with another written text makes it easier to focus on form and to notice and record features of grammar which might otherwise be overlooked. Finally, although I have argued in this paper that a process-oriented approach to teaching grammar is more consistent with the notion of grammar as a liberating force than a product-oriented approach, I am not claiming that such an approach is inherently superior, and preferable at all times and for all levels of student. There are many circumstances where it may be necessary and desirable to pre-select language items for attention prior to setting learners loose on a task, particularly for lower-level students, and as a general policy a balanced combination of the two approaches is likely to be the most effective teaching strategy to adopt. However, if we are serious about emphasizing the notion of grammar as a liberating force in our teaching, we need at least to provide opportunities for our learners to experience its liberating potential through the kind of process-oriented grammar tasks described here. Final revised version received October 2007
References
Batstone, R. 1994. ‘Product and process: grammar in the second language classroom’ in M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, and E. Williams (eds.). Grammar and the Second Language Teacher . Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Batstone, R. 1995. ‘Grammar in discourse: attitude and deniability’ in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.). Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doughty, C. and J. Williams. 1998. ‘Pedagogic choices in focus on form’ in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. 2005. ‘Principles of instructed second language learning’. System 33/2: 209–24. Graver, B. 1986. Advanced English Practice (third edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2002. ‘The Grammar of choice’ in E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (eds.). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms . Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbawm Associates. Long, M. 2001. ‘Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology’ in C. Candlin and N. Mercer (eds.). English Language Teaching in its Social Context . London: Routledge. Skehan, P. 2002. ‘Task-based instruction: theory, research and practice’ in A. Pulverness (ed.). IATEFL 2002: York Conference Selections. Whitstable: IATEFL. .
Appendix 1 Dictogloss text
Swain, M. 1995. ‘Three functions of output in second language learning’ in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.). Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thornbury, S. 1997. ‘Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote noticing’. E LT Journal 51/4: 326–35. Thornbury, S. 2001. Uncovering Grammar . Oxford: Heinemann Macmillan. Ur, P. 1988. Grammar Practice Activities . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wajnryb, R. 1990. Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning . London: Longman. The author
Richard Cullen is Head of the Department of English and Language Studies at Canterbury Christ Church University, UK. His research interests include classroom discourse, teacher and trainer development, and the teaching and learning of grammar, with a particular interest in spoken grammar. He has worked for the British Council on teachereducation projects in Egypt, Bangladesh, and Tanzania, and has alsotaught and trainedteachers in Nepal and Greece. Email:
[email protected]
Students are given the first sentence of the text. They have to ‘recover’ the rest by taking notes as it is read aloud to them (twice) and then reconstructing the text from their notes. The Hubble Space Telescope is a telescope in orbit around the Earth. It is named after astronomer EdwinHubble,famousfor hisdiscovery of galaxies outside the Milky Way and his creation of Hubble’s Law, which calculates the rate at which the universe is expanding. The telescope’s position outside the Earth’s atmosphere allows it to take sharp optical images of very faint objects, and since its launch in 1990, it has become one of the most important instruments in the history of astronomy. It has been responsible for many ground-breaking observations and has helped astronomers achieve a better understanding of many fundamental problems in astrophysics. Hubble’s Ultra Deep Field is the deepest (most sensitive) astronomical optical image ever taken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
2 Picture composition material
(The sequence of pictures is taken from Ur 1988: 218)
Copyright of ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal is the property of Oxford University Press / UK and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
