CAPES 9 : Learning Grammar

We started by looking at Krashen's distinction between Acquisition and Learning. We saw that there were good reasons to doubt whether such a distinction makes much sense, and we also saw that, in any case, the study of grammar is a legitimate part of any school language programme.

Studying grammar means thinking about the structure of the language. Whether we believe that the grammar is largely innate - as Chomsky and Pinker do - or whether we believe that grammar is of a cultural nature - as Halliday and Deacon do - we can agree that language is sequentially structured in such a way that the role of a word in a sentence can be identified by its position or by its form, and that different languages are organized in different ways.

To some observers, differences in the ways language is structured lead to differences in the way the world is experienced - linguists know this as the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis. Most linguists today tend to reject any strong version of this idea - Pinker does so most vehemently - but the pendulum may well swing back ; there is evidence to suggest that different kinds of grammar are related to different pathways in the brain so that, for example, someone whose first language is Italian will, after suffering brain damage in Broca's region, show symptoms more like those of an English speaker suffering from Wernicke's aphasia. (See Deacon, pp.306-10). This implies that we think differently in different languages - whether one can go on from there to surmise that these different ways of thinking will structure our vision of and beliefs about the world in different ways is arguable. It does at the least suggest that thinking the grammar of another tongue may not be a straightforward exercise.

Whether we agree or not that explicit instruction in grammar is an important aid in the acquisition of a FL, teachers should think carefully about how pupils form their ideas of how language is structured and how structure relates to meaning. We need to question whether we are teaching a structure because pupils will need it, or because it is easy to teach (for example, Patsy Lightbown has suggested that French speakers overuse the be -ing form because it is over-taught in the schools, thus giving the learners the impression that it is used more frequently than is in fact the case).

Which structures or points of grammar do you believe to be the most important for a young learner to grasp? Compare your list with that given in the IO for 6e. Now compare it with the grammar that is covered in one of the textbooks. How closely do your three lists agree?

But how does grammar work? Does the idea of 'structures' to be learned and then used actually help the language-learner? Look at Vivian Cook's analysis of what the text-books mean by 'grammatical structures', and what he has to suggest about the relationship between linguistics and language-teaching. And if we do have an idea of what structuring principles the learner needs to acquire, do we know how she should learn them? This question has devilled language teachers for centuries ; look at what Diane Musumeci has to tell us about the long-lasting difference between theories of language teaching and the way those theories are actually put into practice in the class-room. For a succinct round-up of findings and beliefs about the teaching of grammar, see Kathy Heilenman's article 'Grammar'.

(If you have a question of a comment, write to me at tmason@timothyjpmason.com)