Rod Ellis a SLA Perspective

8/10/2019 Rod Ellis a SLA Perspective

1/26

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA PerspectiveAuthor(s): Rod EllisSource: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Mar., 2006), pp. 83-107Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264512

Accessed: 11-08-2014 07:33 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 07:33:07 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40264512http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40264512http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/26

Currentssues n theTeaching f

Grammar:

An SLA

Perspective

ROD

ELLIS

Universityf

Auckland

Auckland,

New Zealand

Thestudyfhow earnerscquire second anguage SLA) hashelped

to

shape

thinking

bout how to

teach

the

grammar

f a second

language.

There

remain,however,

numberof

controversialssues.

This

paper

considers

ight

ey

uestions

elating

o

grammar edagogy

in the

light

f

findings

rom

LA. As

such,

this rticle

omplements

Celce-Murcia's

1991)

article n

grammar eaching

n the

25th

nniver-

sary

ssueof

TESOL

Quarterly,

hich onsidered

herole of

grammar

n

a communicative

urriculum

nd drew

predominantly

n a

linguistic

theory

f

grammar.

hese

eightquestions

ddresswhether

rammar

should

be

taught

nd if so what

grammar,

hen,

nd how.

Although

SLA does not

fford efinitiveolutions

o these

uestions,

t erves he

valuable

purpose

of

problematising

his

spect

of

anguagepedagogy.

This article

concludes

with a statement

f

my

own beliefs about

grammar eaching,

rounded

n

my

wn

understanding

f SLA.

article

dentifies nd

discusses a number

of

key

ssues

relating

o

the

teaching

of

grammar

n a

second

language

(L2)

and,

by drawing

on

theory

nd

research

n

SLA,

suggestsways

o address these

problems.

It

points

to

a number

of

alternative

olutions to

each

problem, ndicating

thatmore oftenthannot there are no clear solutionscurrentlyvailable.

The

aim, therefore,

s

not

to

identify

ew solutions to

existing

ontrover-

sies,

nor even

to

present

new

controversies.Rather it addresses within

the

compass

of a

single

article whole

range

of ssues

related to

grammar

teaching,

problematises

hese

ssues,

and

by

o

doing, provides

a

counter-

weight

to the

advocacy

of

specific,

but also

quite

limited,

proposals

for

teaching

grammar

that

have

originated

n

some

SLA

quarters.

However,

I

conclude

with

a

statement

f

my

own

position

on

these issues.

The

questions

that will

be addressed are

1. Should we

teach

grammar,

r

should we

simply

reate the conditions

by

which learners earn

naturally?

2.

What

grammar

hould we

teach?

TESOL QUARTERLY

Vol.

40,

No.

1

March

2006

83

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

3.

When should

we

teach

grammar?

s

it

bestto teach

grammar

hen

learners irsttart o earn n

L2

or

to

wait

until aterwhen earners

havealready cquired ome inguisticompetence?

4.

Should

grammar

nstructione massed

i.e.,

the

available

eaching

timebe

concentrated

nto a

short

period)

or distributed

i.e.,

the

available

eaching

ime

pread

over

longerperiod)?

5. Should

grammar

nstructione intensive

e.g.,

cover

singlegram-

matical

tructure

n

a

single

esson)

or extensive

e.g.,

cover

many

grammatical

tructures

n

a

single

esson)?

6.

Is there

ny

value n

teaching

xplicit rammatical

nowledge?

7. Is there

best

way

o teach

grammar

or

mplicit

nowledge?

8. Should

grammar

e

taught

n

separate

essonsor

integrated

nto

communicativectivities?

DEFINING GRAMMAR

EACHING

Traditionally,rammar eaching

s

viewed

s the

presentation

nd

practice

f

discrete

rammatical

tructures.his

s

theview

romulgated

in

teacherhandbooks.

Ur

(1996),

for

example,

n

her

chapter

itled

TeachingGrammar as sections n presentingnd explaining ram-

mar and

grammar ractice

ctivities.

edge

(2000)

in

her

chapter

titled

Grammar

imilarly nly

considers

presenting

rammar

nd

practising rammar.

his constitutesn

overly

arrow efinition

f

grammar

eaching.

t

s

certainly

rue hat

rammar

eaching

anconsist

of the

presentation

nd

practice

of

grammatical

tems.

But,

as will

become

pparent,

tneed

not.

First,

ome

grammar

essons

might

onsist

of

presentation

y

tself

i.e.,

without

nypractice),

while

others

might

entail

onlypractice

i.e.,

no

presentation).

econd,

grammar

eaching

can

involve earners

n

discovering rammatical

ules

for themselves

(i.e.,no presentationnd nopractice). hird, rammar eaching anbe

conducted

imply y

exposing

earners o

input

contrived o

provide

multiple

exemplars

of the

target

tructure.

ere,

too,

there is

no

presentation

nd no

practice,

t east

n

the enseof

eliciting

roduction

of

the

structure.

inally, rammar eaching

an be conducted

y

means

of correctiveeedback

n

learner

rrorswhen hese rise

n the context

of

performing

ome communicativeask.

The definition

f

grammar

teaching

hat nformshis rticle

s

a broad one:

Grammar

eaching

nvolves

any

instructional

technique

that

draws learners'

attentionto some specific grammaticalform n such a waythat thelps them

either to understand t

metalinguistically

nd/or

process

it n

comprehension

and/or

production

so that

they

an internalize

t.

84

TESOL

QUARTERLY



4/26

SHOULD WE TEACH GRAMMAR?

This questionwas motivated yearlyresearch nto naturalistic2

acquisition,

which howed that earners

ppeared

to

follow natural

orderand

sequence

of

acquisition

i.e.,

they

mastered

ifferent

ram-

matical tructures

n

a

relatively

ixed and universal

rder and

they

passed

through

sequence

of

tages

f

cquisition

n route

o

mastering

each

grammatical

tructure).

his ed researchersike

Corder

1967)

to

suggest

hat

earners ad their wn built-in

yllabus

or

earning ram-

mar.

n

line with

his,

Krashen

1981)

argued

that

grammar

nstruction

played

no

role

in

acquisition,

view based on the

conviction hat

learners

including

lassroom

earners)

would

automatically roceed

along

their uilt-in

yllabus

s

long

as

they

had access to

comprehensible

input

nd were

ufficiently

otivated. rammar

nstructionould con-

tribute

o

learning

ut this

was of

imited alue because communicative

ability

as

dependent

n

acquisition.

There followed

number

of

empirical

studies

designed

to

(a)

compare

he

orderof

acquisition

f nstructednd

naturalisticearners

(e.g.,

Pica,

1983), b)

compare

he

uccess f nstructednd

naturalistic

learners

Long,

1983)

and

(c)

examine whether

ttempts

o teach

specific rammatical

tructuresesulted

n

their

cquisition e.g.,

White,

Spada, Lightbown, Ranta,1991). These studies howedthat, yand

large,

heorder

f

acquisition

was the

ame for nstructednd naturalis-

tic learners

although

herewere some

interesting

ifferences1),

hat

instructed earners

generally

chieved

higher

evels of

grammatical

competence

than

naturalisticearners

and that

instruction as no

guarantee

hat

earners

would

cquire

what

hey

ad been

taught.

hese

results

were

nterpreted

s

showing

hatthe

acquisitional

rocesses

f

instructednd

naturalistic

earning

were the same but

that nstructed

learners

rogressed

more

rapidly

nd

achieved

higher

evelsof

profi-

ciency.

Thus,

some researchers oncluded

(e.g.,

Long,

1988)

that

teaching rammar asbeneficial utthat obe effectiverammar ad to

be

taught

n

a

way

that

was

compatible

with he natural

processes

f

acquisition.

Subsequent

research,

uch as Noms and

Ortega's

(2000)

meta-

analysis

f49

studies,

as borneout theoverall

ffectivenessf

grammar

teaching.

urther,

here s evidence

hat,

ontrary

o Krashen's

1993)

continued

laims,

nstructionontributeso both

acquired knowledge

(see

Ellis,

002a)

as well s learned

knowledge.

here s also

increasing

1For

example,

Pica

(1983)

notes that some structures

e.g.,

plural-s)

were used more

accurately y

nstructed earners nd some

(e.g.,

Verb-ing)

by

naturalistic

earners.

n

other

structures

e.g.,

articles)

therewas no difference.

CURRENT ISSUES

IN THE

TEACHING

OF

GRAMMAR

85



5/26

evidence hat

naturalistic

earning

n

the classroom

as,

e.g.,

n immer-

sion

programmes)

oes not

typically

esult

n

high

evels f

grammatical

competenceGenesee, 1987). In short,here snowconvincingndirect

and direct vidence o

support

he

teaching

f

grammar.

evertheless,

doubtsremain

bout the nature f the research

vidence.

Many

tudies

(including

most of

those reviewed

y

Norris

and

Ortega)

measure

learning

n

terms

f

constrained

onstructed

esponses

e.g.,

fill

n

the

blanks,

sentence

oining,

r sentence

ransformation),

hich an be

expected

o

favour

rammar eaching.

here s

only

mixed

vidence hat nstruction

results

n

learning

when

it is

measured

by

means of

free

onstructed

responses

e.g.,

communicative

asks).

Also,

it remains

the case that

learners o not

always cquire

what

hey

ave been

taught

nd that

or

grammarnstructiono be effectivet needs to take accountof how

learners

evelop

heir

nterlanguages.

s we will

ee,

there s

controversy

regarding

othhow

nterlanguageevelopment

ccurs nd how nstruc-

tioncan

facilitate

his.

WHAT

GRAMMAR SHOULD

WE TEACH?

Assuming,

hen,

hat

rammareaching

an

contribute

o

nterlanguage

development,

he next

logical

question

concernswhatgrammarwe

should teach. This

question

can be broken

down into two

separate

questions:

1.

Whatkindof

grammar

houldwe base

teaching

n?

2.

Which

grammatical

eatures houldwe teach?

Linguistics

ffords broad

selection f

grammatical

models to choose

from,

ncluding

tructural

rammars,enerative

rammars

based

on

a

theory

f universal

rammar)

and functional

rammars.

raditionally

syllabuseshave been based on structuralr descriptive rammars.

Structural

yllabuses

raditionally

mphasised

he

teaching

f

form ver

meaning

e.g.,

Lado,

1970).

Though

the

nfluence

f

structural

ram-

mars

s

still

pparent oday,

modern

yllabuses

ightlyive

more atten-

tion to the functions

erformed

y grammatical

orms.

Thus,

for

example,

ess

emphasis

s

placed

on such

spects

f

grammar

s sentence

patterns

r tense

paradigms

nd more on

the

meanings

onveyed y

different

rammatical

orms

n

communication.

ome

attempt

asonce

made to

exploit

he

nsights

o be

gleaned

from

enerative

heories

f

grammar

see,

e.g.,Bright,

965),

but

n

general, yllabus

esigners

nd

teachers ave not found uchmodelsuseful nd havepreferredorely

on modern

descriptive rammars,

uch

as Celce-Murcia

nd

Larsen-

86

TESOL

QUARTERLY



6/26

Freeman's

1999)

Grammar

ook.This

resource

s

especially

aluable

because t

not

onlyprovides comprehensive,

lear,

nd

pedagogically

exploitable escriptionfEnglish rammarut also identifieshekinds

of

errors hat

2

learners

re known o makewith ifferent

rammatical

structures.

uch information

s

important

ecause it

helps

to

identify

which structures

nd

which

aspects

of a structure

equire special

attention. he Grammar

ook

s also ideal

in

that t

presents

nformation

not

only

bout

inguistic

orm

ut lso aboutthe

emantic

nd discoursal

meanings

ealised

yparticular

orms. s

VanPatten,Williams,

nd Rott

(2004)

emphasise,

stablishing

onnections etween

orm

nd

meaning

is a fundamental

spect

of

language

acquisition.

hus,

any

reference

grammar

hatfails

to describe

the

form-meaning

onnections f the

targetanguagemustnecessarilye inadequate. n general, hen, he

choice of which

ype

f

grammar

o use

as

a

basisfor

eaching

s not a

major

ource

of

controversy;

escriptive

rammars

hatdetail

the

form-

meaning elationships

f the

anguage

re ascendant.

In

contrast,

he choice

of which

grammatical

tructures

o teach s

controversial.

wo

polar

positions

an

be identified

nd various

ositions

in

between.

At one

end of this continuum

s Krashen's

minimalist

position.

Krashen

(1982)

argues

that

grammar eaching

should be

limited o a few

imple

nd

portable

ules uch

as

3rd

person-j

nd

past

tense-dhat an

be used

to

monitor

utput

rom he

acquired ystem.He baseshis

argument

n the claimthatmost earners re

only apable

of

learning

uch

simple

rules thatmore

complex

rulesare

generally

not earnable

r,

f

hey

re,

re

beyond

tudents'

bility

o

apply hrough

monitoring.

rashen's

laim,however,

s

not warranted.

here

is now

ample

evidence

that

many

earners re

capable

of

mastering

wide

range

of

explicit rammar

ules.Green nd Hecht

1992),

for

xample,

found hat

university-level

tudents

f

English

n

Germany

ere ble to

produce

lear

explanations

or

5%

of

the

grammatical

rrors

hey

were

askedto

explain,

while verall

he earners n their

tudy

who

ncluded

secondarychoolstudents)managed atisfactoryxplanations or46%

of the errors.

Macrory

nd Stone

(2000)

reported

hatBritish

ompre-

hensive

chool students

ad a

fairly ood explicit nderstanding

f the

perfect

ense

n French

e.g., they

nderstood

ts

function,

hey

knew

that ome verbsused

avoir nd some

tre,

hey

were familiar

with he

forms

equired

y

different

ronouns,

nd

they

were wareof

the

need

for

final ccent

on the

past participle).

Hu

(2002)

found

that dult

Chinese

earners f

English

emonstratedorrect

metalinguistic

nowl-

edge

of

prototypical

ules

f six

English

tructures

e.g.,

for

he

definite

article

pecific

eference

onstituted he

prototypical

ule)

but were ess

clear bout heperipheralules or hese tructurese.g.,genericeference)

At

the

other

pole

is the

comprehensiveosition:

each the wholeof

CURRENT ISSUES

IN

THE

TEACHING

OF

GRAMMAR 87



7/26

the

grammar

f the

target

anguage.2

his is

the

position

dopted by

many

ourse book writers

e.g.,

Walter&

Swan,

1990)

or authors f

grammar racticematerialse.g.,Murphy,994).Such a positionwould

also seem

unwarrantedecause earners re

clearly apable

of

earning

substantialmount f the

L2

grammar

ithoutnstructionnd because

most

eaching

ontexts ave imited ime vailable

or

eaching rammar

so

some selection s needed.

What then

should selectionbe based on? The answer

would seem

obvious the

nherent

earning

ifficulty

f different

rammatical

truc-

tures. he

problem

rises

n

how

to

determine his.To

begin

with,

t s

necessary

o

distinguish

wo ifferentenses f

earning

ifficulty.

hiscan

refer o

(a)

the

difficulty

earners

ave n

understanding grammatical

feature nd (b) to thedifficultyhey ave ninternalisinggrammatical

feature o that

hey

re

able to use t

ccurately

n

communication.

hese

two

enses elate o thedistinction

etween

earning rammar

s

explicit

knowledge

nd as

implicit nowledge,

hich s discussed ater.

Clearly,

what s difficulto

earn

s

explicit

nowledge

nd as

implicit nowledge

is notthe ame.

For

example,

most earners aveno

difficulty

n

grasping

the rule

for

English

hird

erson-s

ut

they

aveenormous

ifficulty

n

internalising

his tructureo

they

an use it

ccurately.

hese two enses

of

learningdifficulty

ave not

always

been

clearly

distinguished

n

languagepedagogy,

ith

he

result hat venwhen he tated

oal

is

the

development

f

implicit

knowledge,

t is the

anticipated

difficulty

studentswillhave n

understanding

feature hat

guides

the selection

and

grading

f

grammatical

tructures.hird

person-5,

or

xample,

s

typicallyaught ery arly

n a course.

How then

has

learning

difficulty

een established?

raditionally,

factorsuchas the

frequency

f

pecific

tructures

n

the

nput

nd their

utility

o learners ave

been

invoked

Mackey,

976),

but thesefactors

would seem to have more to do

with se3thanwith

nherent

ognitive

difficulty.

ere

I

consider wo

pproaches

hathave

figured

n

attempts

to delineate ognitive ifficulty.

1. Teach those

forms hat

iffer rom he earners'

irst

anguage

LI).

2.

Teach marked ather hanunmarked

orms.

2

Of

course,

it is not

possible

to

specify

he whole

grammar

f a

language.

Though

the

grammar

f a

language

may

be

determinate,

escriptions

f t are

certainly

ot. The

Longman

A Grammar

f

Contemporarynglish

Quirk,

Greenbaum,Leech,

8c

Svartvik,

972)

ran to 1081

pages (excluding

ndex and

bibliography)

ut

doubtlessly

oes not account for

ll the known

facts f

English

grammar.

Nevertheless,

here

s

a

recognized

anon of

English

tructures

hat,

in

the

eyes

of

syllabus esigners

nd textbook

writers,

onstitutes

he

grammar

f

English.3Structuresike

English

rticles hat re

very

requent

n the

nput

an

impose

considerable

learning

ifficulty.

tructuresuch

as

English

onditionals

may

be

very

seful

o

earners ut

are

also

difficulto

learn.

88

TESOL

QUARTERLY



8/26

The first

pproach

was,

of

course,

the

one

adopted

in

many arly

structuralourses

ased

on

a

contrastive

nalysis

f the earner's I and

the target anguage.Although he contrastivenalysishypothesiss

initially

ormulated

s

clearly

ottenable

see

Ellis, 985,

hapter

),

SLA

researchers

till

enerallygree

that earners

ransfer

t east omeofthe

features

f their

I

into the

L2.

For

example,

here s

ample

evidence

(Trahey

White,

993)

to show hat rench

earners f

English roduce

errors

fthe

kind

Mary

issed

assionately

ohn

ecauseFrench

ermits

n

adverb

to be

positioned

between the

verb and the direct

object.

Nevertheless,

ontrastive

nalysis

oes

not constitute sound basis for

selecting

rammatical

tructures.

n

many eaching

ontexts,

he earn-

ers come from

mixed

anguagebackgrounds

here t would be

impos-

sibleto use contrastivenalysiso tailor rammar eaching othe entire

group

because

the

earners

avedifferent

is.

Also,

we

simply

o not

yet

know

nough

about when difference

oes

and does not translatento

learning

difficulty,

nd

in

some

cases,

learning

difficulty

rises even

where

here s

no difference.

The

second

approach,

however,

s also

problematic.

Markednessas

been defined

n terms

f

whether

grammatical

tructure

s

in

some

sense

frequent,

atural,

nd basic or

infrequent,

nnatural,

nd deviant

from

regular attern

Richards,

latt,

Weber,

985).

Thus,

heuse

of

an

infinitiveithout

o

ollowingmake,

s

in

He mademe

ollow

im an be

consideredmarkedbecause makes one the fewverbs n

English

hat

takes

this kind

of

complement

nd because

this

pattern

ccurs

only

infrequently.

he

general

idea

is that we

should teach the marked

featuresnd

leavethe

earners o earn

heunmarked orms

aturallyy

themselves.

he

problem

s

that,

s

the definition

uggests,

markedness

remains somewhat

paque concept,

o

that

t s

often ifficult

o

apply

with

he

precision

eeded to determine hich

tructureso teach.

The selection

f

grammatical

ontent, hen,

remains

ery

roblem-

atic.

One solution

o the

kinds f

problems

have mentioned s

to

base

selection n theknown rrors roducedby earners.n this espect,ists

ofcommon

earner

rrors

uch s those vailable

n

Turton nd Heaton's

(1996)

Longman

ictionary f

Common rrorsnd Swan and

Smith's

2001)

Learner

English:

A

Teachers

Guide

to

Interference

nd

Other roblems re

helpful.

The

problems

f

selection

probably

xplain

whygrammatical

ylla-

buses re

so similar

nd

have

changed

o little

ver he

years;

t s safer o

followwhathas

been done

before.

Of course

the

selection f whatto

teach

will also

depend

on the learner's

tage

of

development.

he

problems

hat

he earner's

tage

f

development

nvolve

re

discussed

n

subsequentections.

CURRENT ISSUES

IN

THE TEACHING OF

GRAMMAR 89



9/26

WHEN SHOULD WE TEACH

GRAMMAR?

There retwo ompetingnswersothis uestion. ccordingo the

first,

t s

best o

emphasise

he

eaching

f

grammar

n

the

arlytages

f

L2

acquisition.

ccording

othe

econd,

t s

best

o

emphasise eaning-

focused

nstructiono

begin

with nd ntroduce

rammar

eaching

ater,

when

earners ave

lready

egun

o form heir

nterlanguages.

will

briefly

onsiderhe

rguments

or

oth

ositions.

A

key

remise

f behaviouristheories f

anguage earning

s

that

errorike in

needs

to be

avoided t

all costs

Brooks, 960).

This

premise

olds hat

nce

earners ave

ormed

ncorrect

abits,

hey

ill

have

ifficultyradicating

hem nd

replacing

hemwith orrect abits.

Thus,t snecessaryoensure hatearnerseveloporrect abitsnthe

first

lace.

Thiswas ne of he

key remises

f

he

udiolingual

ethod

(Lado,1964).

Other

rguments

anbe advanced

n favourf

beginning

to teach

grammar

arly.

he

alternative

o a form-focused

pproach

emphasises

eaning

nd

message

reation,

s

in task-based

anguage

teaching

Skehan, 998),

ut

many

eacherselieve hat

eginning-level

learners

annot

ngage

n

meaning-centred

ctivitiesecause

hey

ack

the

necessary nowledge

f the

L2

to

perform

asks.

hus,

form-

focused

pproach

s

needed

nitially

o

construct

basis f

knowledge

that earnersanthen se andextendn a meaning-focusedpproach.

Finally,

urrent

onnectionist

heories f

L2

learning,

hich

ive

pri-

macy

o

implicitearning rocesses

ased

on massive

xposure

o the

target

anguage,

lso

provide

basis or

eachingrammar

o

beginners.

N. Ellis

2005)

has

uggested

hat

earning

ecessarily

ommences

ith

an

explicitepresentation

f

inguistic

orms,

hich

re

then

eveloped

through

mplicitearning.

e

suggests

hat

eaching rammar

arly

s

valuable ecause t

provides

basis or

he eal

earning

hat ollows.his

seems o echo

Lightbown's

1991)

metaphor,

ccording

owhich

ram-

mar nstruction

acilitates

earning yproviding

earners ith

hooks

which hey angrabon to.The idea behind hismetaphors that

conscious

nderstanding

f

how

grammatical

eatures ork

acilitates

thekind f

processinge.g.,

ttentiono

inguistic

orm)

equired

or

developing

rue

ompetence.

The

argumentgainst

eaching rammar arly

n derives rom

researchn mmersion

rogrammes

e.g.,

Genesee,

987),

which

hows

that earners

n

such

programmes

re able to

develop

he

proficiency

needed or

luentommunicationithout

ny

ormalnstruction

n

the

L2.

For

xample,

earnersf

L2

Spanish

o notneed

to be

taught

hat

adjectives

ollow ouns

n this

anguage; hey

eem

o be able

to earn

thisnaturalisticallyromxposure o communicativenput Hughes,

1979).

imilarly,

earnersf

L2

English

an

master

imple

elativelauses

90

TESOL

QUARTERLY



10/26

(e.g.,

clauses

where

the relative

ronoun

functions

s

subject

nd the

clause

s attached

o

a

noun

phrase

following

he

verb)

There

s

ample

evidence o show hat earners an anddo learn gooddeal ofgrammar

without

eingtaught

t.

This

being

o,

why

other

o teachwhat an be

learned

naturally?

second reason

for

delaying rammar eaching

o

later

stages

of

development

s that

early interlanguage

s

typically

agrammatical

Ellis,

1984;

Perdue

&

Klein,

1993).

That

s,

earners

ely

on a

memory-based

ystem

f

exical

equences,

onstructing

tterances

either

by

accessing

ready-made

hunks or

by simply oncatenating

lexical items

nto

simple

strings.

llis

(1984)

givesexamples

of

such

utterances

n

the

early peech

of

three lassroom

earners:

Meno = I don'thaveany rayons)

Me milkman

=

I

want

o be the

milkman)

Dinner

ime

ou

ut

=

It

is

dinner ime

o

you

have to

go

out)

Such

pidginised

utterances

ely heavily

n contextand the use

of

communication

trategies.

hey

are

very

ffective

n

simple,

ontext-

embedded

ommunication.

rguably,

t s this exicalised

nowledge

hat

provides

he

basis for

the

subsequent

evelopment

f the

grammatical

competence

needed

for context-free

ommunication.

his,

then,

s

a

strong rgument ordelaying heteaching fgrammar ntil earners

have

developed

basic

communicative

bility.

In

general,

have

favoured

he second

of these

positions

see

Ellis,

2002b)

Given

hat

many

lassroom

earnerswill

not

progress

eyond

he

initial

tages

of

language

learning,

t

seems

to me that

a task-based

approach

that

caters

to the

development

f a

proceduralised

exical

system

nd

simple,

aturallycquired

grammatical

tructures

ill

nsure

a threshold

ommunicative

bility

nd,

therefore,

s to be

preferred

o an

approach

hat nsists

n

grammatical

ccuracy

rom he tart nd

that,

s

a

consequence,

may

mpede

the

development

f this

communicative

ability.ask-basedanguage eachingspossiblewith omplete eginners

if

he

firstasks

mphasise

istening

and

perhaps

eading)

nd allowfor

nonverbal

esponses.

However,

t s

possible

hat

uch an

approach

can

be

usefully

omplemented

ith ne

thatdraws

eginners'

ttention o

some

useful

grammatical

eatures

e.g.,

past

tense-^d

n

English)

that

they

might

therwise

miss.This

is the aim

of

input-processing

nstruction

(VanPatten,

996,

2003),

which

s discussed ater.

CURRENT ISSUES

IN THE TEACHING

OF GRAMMAR

91



11/26

SHOULD GRAMMAR

TEACHING

BE

MASSED OR DISTRIBUTED?

This

uestion

s

ogicallyndependent

f he

recedinguestion.

hat

is,

irrespective

f

when

grammareaching

ommences,

e need to

consider hethert hould e concentratednto

short

eriod

ftime

or

pread

ver

longer

eriod. emarkably

ittle esearch

as ddressed

this

uestion.

The researchhat asbeenundertaken

eports

n the elativeffects

of

massed nd distributed

anguage

nstruction

n

general

anguage

proficiency

atherhan he ffectsn

grammarearning.

ollins, alter,

Lightbown,Spada 1999) ummarisehe vailable esearchs follows:

None

of the

anguageprogram

valuation esearch

as found

n

advantage

fordistributed

anguage

nstruction.

lthough

he

findings

hus

far ead to

the

hypothesis

hatmore oncentrated

xposure

o

English

may

ead to

better

student

utcomes,

he evidence s not conclusive,

p.

659)

Collins nd

olleagues

hen

eport

heir wn

tudy

f hree

ntensiveSL

programmes

n

Canada,

ne

(the

distributed

rogramme)

aught

ver

thefull 0 months f one school

year,

ne

(the

massed

rogramme)

concentrated

nto months ut

aught

nly

o above

verage

tudents,

andthe hirdthemassedlus rogramme)oncentratednto months,

supplemented

ith utofclass

pportunities

o use

English

nd

taught

to tudentsfmixed

bility

evels. he main

inding

as hat

hemassed

and

especially

he

massed-plus

tudents

utperformed

he

distributed

programme

tudentsn most f the measures

f

earning,

ncluding

somemeasures f

grammaticalbility,lthough

his

inding ight

n

part

be

explained y

the fact

hat he massed

rogrammes

rovided

more verallnstructionalime.

Collins tal. s

study

oints

othe

need

for

urther

esearch,

specially

throughtudieshat omparemassed nddistributed

nstructioni-

rected t

specific

rammatical

tructures.

deally

ucha

study

ould

compare

hort

eriods

f nstruction

n

a

particular

tructure

pread

over everal

ays

with he

ame

mount

f nstruction

ompressed

nto

one or two

essons.4

eceivedwisdoms that

cyclical

pproach

o

grammar

eaching

Howatt,

974)

s tobe

preferred

ecause

t llows or

thekind f

gradual cquisition

f

grammar

hat

s

compatible

ith hat

is

known bout

nterlanguage

evelopment.

owever,

he

results

f

4Given heproblemshat rise ncontrollingxtraneousariablesn evaluationsfentire

programmes,

t

might rove

much

asier oconduct

igorous

tudies f

massed nddistributed

learning

hen hese re focused

n

specific rammatical

tructures.

92

TESOL

QUARTERLY



12/26

Collins

t al. s

study uggest,

t

the

very

east,

hat uch a

position

eeds

to be

investigated

mpirically.

ere, then,

s an

issue about which

nothing efinitivean be said at themoment.

SHOULD

GRAMMAR

TEACHING

BE

INTENSIVE

OR

EXTENSIVE?

Intensive

rammar

eaching

efers o nstructionver sustained

eriod

of time

which

ould

be a lessonor

a

series f

essons

overing ays

r

weeks)

concerning single

grammatical

tructure

r,

perhaps,

pair

of

contrastedtructurese.g., Englishpast continuous

vs.

past simple).

Extensive

rammar

eaching

efers o nstruction

oncerning

whole

range

of structures

ithin short

eriod

of time

e.g.,

a

lesson)

so that

ach

structure eceives

nly

minimal ttention

n

any

one lesson. t is the

differenceetween

hooting pistolrepeatedly

t the same

target

nd

firing shotgun

o

spray ellets

t a

variety

f

targets.

nstructionan

be

intensive

r extensive

rrespective

fwhether

t

s

massed r distributed.

The massed-distributed

istinction efers

o how a whole

grammar

course

is

staged,

while

the intensive-extensiveistinction efers o

whether

ach

single

esson

addresses

single

or

multiple

rammatical

features).

Grammar

eaching

s

typically

iewed s

entailing

ntensive

nstruc-

tion.The

present-practise-produce

PPP)

model of

grammar

eaching,

which

underlies

most discussions

f

grammar

eaching

n

teacher

handbooks

see,

e.g.,

Hedge,

2000;

Ur,

1996),

assumes

n intensive ocus

on

specific

rammatical

tructures.

lthough

uch

discussions

cknowl-

edge

that earners'

readiness

o

acquire

a

specific

tructureimits he

effectiveness

f

teaching

no

matter ow

ntensivet

s),

they

lso assume

thatwith ufficient

pportunities

or

practice,

earnerswill

eventually

succeed

n

automatising

he

structures

hey

re

taught.

s Ur

says,

the

aim ofgrammar ractice s to getstudents o learn the structureso

thoroughly

hat

they

will be able to

produce

them

correctly

n

their

own

p.

83).

Thus,

the dea

that

practise

makes

perfect

s

the

primary

justification

orthe

ntensive

pproach.

Practise,

owever,

must nvolve

bothdrills

nd tasks

i.e.,

opportunities

o

practice

he

target

tructure

n

a communicative

ontext)

It

is

perhaps

ess

easy

to see how

grammar

eaching

an

comprise

extensive

nstruction.

teacherwould

probably

ot electto

present

nd

practise

whole

range

of

grammatical

tructures

ithin

single

esson.

Extensive

rammar

nstructionf

kind,

owever,

as

always

ad a

placein

grammar

eaching.

ome30

years go,

while

eaching

na

secondary

school

in

Zambia,

I

regularly ave

lessons

where

I

illustrated nd

CURRENT

ISSUES

IN THE TEACHING

OF GRAMMAR 93



13/26

explained

ome of

the common rrors hat had observed

my

tudents

making

n

their

written

ompositions. imilarly,

n

the context

f task-

based teaching,ome teachershave been observed o note the errors

that earnersmake and then to address them when

the task s

over

(Basturkmen,

oewen,

&

Ellis,

2004).

However,

xtensive

grammar

teaching

an occur within

learning

ctivity,

ot

ust

as

some kind of

postscript.

eachers

provide

orrective eedback

n

the

context f both

form-focusednd

meaning-focused

essons,

nd

although

eedback

n

form-focusedessons

may

e directed

rimarily

t the

tructure

argeted

by

he

esson,

n

the

meaning-focused

essons t s

ikely

o be directed t

whateverrrorsearners

appen

to make.Studies

f

corrective

eedback

(e.g., Lyster

Ranta,

997;

Ellis,

Batsurkmen, Loewen,

001)

demon-

strate hatncommunicativeessons widevarietyfgrammaticalorms

are

addressed

ncidentallyhrough

orrectiveeedback.

There is

littledoubt now that ntensive

rammar

essons

can be

effective.

hough

earlierresearch howedthat earners

o not

always

learnwhat

hey

re

taught, specially

hen

earning

s

measured

n

terms

of

spontaneousproduction e.g.,

Kadia,

1987),

more

recentresearch

(e.g., Spada

&

Lightbown,

999)

indicates

hat ven

f

earners

re not

ready

o

learn

the

targeted

tructure,

ntensive

rammar

eaching

an

help

them

progress

hrough

he

sequence

of

stages

nvolved

n the

acquisition

fthat tructure.

n

other

words,eaching

marked

tructure

intensively

an

help

learners earn

associated,

ess marked tructures

even

f t

does notresult

n

acquisition

f

the

marked tructure.

ntensive

instruction lso

helps

learners to use structures

hey

have

already

partially cquired

more

accurately

e.g.,

White,

pada,

Lightbown,

Ranta,

1991).

There are also theoretical

rguments

nd some

empirical

vidence

n

favour f

an

extensive

pproach.

Cook

(1989)

has

argued

from he

perspective

funiversal

rammar

hat earners

equire

minimal vidence

to set a

particular arameter

or he

grammar

hey

re

learning.

ther

researchersave mphasisedhe mportancefnegativevidencehrough

corrective

eedback or

grammarearning

y

dults. oewen

2002)

has

shown hat ven

very

rief

pisodes

of correctiveeedback

re

related o

correctness n

subsequent

ests.

n

that

tudy,

oewen identified

he

errors hat eachers ddressed

ncidentally

n thecontext

f

communica-

tive

anguageteaching

nd then

developed

tailor-made

ests,

which

he

administeredo the earnerswho

made the

pecific

rrors

ither ne

day

or

two

weeks ater.These tests howed

that the learners

were

subse-

quently

ften ble

to

identify

nd correct

heir wn

errors.

There

are

pros

and cons forboth ntensive

nd

extensive

rammar

instruction.ome structures aynot be masteredwithoutheopportu-

nity

for

repeated practice.

Harley

(1989),

for

example,

found

that

anglophone

earnersof

L2

French failed to

acquire

the distinction

94

TESOL

QUARTERLY



14/26

between

he

preterite

nd

imparfait

ast

tenses fter oursof

exposure

(and

presumably

omecorrective

eedback)

n an

immersion

rogramme

but were ble to improve heir ccuracyn usingthesetwo enses fter

intensivenstruction.

owever,

ntensivenstructions time

onsuming

(in

Harley's

tudy

he

targeted

tructures ere

taught

ver a 6-month

period),

and

thus,

time

will constrainhow

many

structures

an be

addressed.

Extensive

rammar

nstruction,

n the other

hand,

affords

the

opportunity

o attend

o

large

numbers

f

grammatical

tructures.

Also,

more

likely

han

not,

many

of

the structures

ill be addressed

repeatedly

ver

period

of time.

Further,

ecause thiskind

of nstruc-

tion nvolves

response

o the errors ach learner

makes,

t s individu-

alized

nd affords

he killed eacher eal-time

pportunities

or hekind

ofcontextualnalysishatCelce-Murcia2002) recommendss basisfor

grammar

eaching.

However,

t

is not

possible

to

attend

to those

structures

hat

earners

o not

attempt

o use

(i.e.,

extensivenstruction

cannot deal

effectively

ith

voidance).

Also,

of

course,

t does not

provide

he

n-depth ractise

hat

ome structures

ayrequire

before

they

an

be

fully cquired.

Arguably,

rammar

eaching

eedsto

be conceived f

n

terms fboth

approaches.

herefore,

rammar

eaching

eeds to be

reconceptualised

in

teacher

handbooks

to include the kind

of

extensive reatment

f

grammar

hat

rises

naturallyhrough

orrectiveeedback.

IS

THERE ANY

VALUE IN TEACHING

EXPLICIT

GRAMMATICAL

KNOWLEDGE?

The

distinction

etween

xplicit

nd

implicit nowledge

was men-

tioned

briefly

arlier.

xplicit

nowledge

onsists f

thefacts hat

peakers

ofa

language

have

earned.These facts re often

ot

clearly

nderstood

and

may

e

in

conflict

ith ach other.

hey

oncern ifferent

spects

f

language ncluding rammar. xplicit nowledgesheldconsciously,s

learnable nd

verbalisable,

nd is

typically

ccessed

through

ontrolled

processing

hen

earners

xperience

ome

kind

f

inguistic

ifficulty

n

using

the

L2.

A distinction eeds to be

drawnbetween

xplicit

knowl-

edge

as

analysed

nowledge

nd as

metalinguisticxplanation.

nalysed

knowledge

ntails

conscious wareness

fhow structuraleature

orks,

while

metalinguistic

xplanation

onsists

f

knowledge

f

grammatical

metalanguage

nd

the

ability

o understand

xplanations

f

rules.

n

contrast,

mplicit

nowledge

s

procedural,

s held

unconsciously,

nd can

only

be

verbalized

f

t s made

explicit.

t is accessed

rapidly

nd

easily

and thus s available oruse in rapid,fluent ommunication. ostSLA

researchers

gree

that

competence

n an

L2

is

primarily

matter

f

implicit

nowledge.

CURRENT ISSUES

IN THE TEACHING

OF

GRAMMAR 95



15/26

Whether here s

any

value

n

teaching

xplicit

nowledge

f

grammar

has been

and remains

oday

one of the most controversialssues

n

teaching rammar.o make sense of the differentositions elatingo

the

teaching

f

explicit

knowledge,

t is

necessary

o considerthree

separate

uestions:

1. Is

explicit

nowledge

f

any

value

n

and of tself?

2.

Is

explicitknowledge

f

value

in

facilitating

he

development

f

implicit nowledge?

3. Is

explicit

nowledge

est

taught

eductively

r

inductively?

I

partly

ddressed

he

first

uestion

when

consideredwhat

rammar

to teach.

noted that esearchers

isagree

ver

earners'

bility

o earn

explicit nowledge, ith ome (e.g.,Krashen, 982) seeingthis s very

limited nd

others

e.g.,

Green &

Hecht,

1992)

producing

vidence o

suggest

hat t s considerable. here

s,however,

separate

ssuerelated

to

thefirst

uestion.

his ssue oncerns heextent o

which earners re

able to

use

their

xplicit nowledge

whatever

hat

onsists

f)

in

actual

performance. gain,

ne

position

s that his

bility

s

limited. rashen

argues

hat

earners

an

only

use

explicit nowledge

hen

they

monitor,

which

equires

hat

hey

re focused n

form

as

opposed

to

meaning)

and have

sufficientime

to

access the

knowledge.

here

is

also

some

evidence that

teaching xplicitknowledge y

itself

i.e.,

without

ny

opportunities

or

ractising

he

target

eature)

s noteffective.tudies

y

VanPatten nd Oikennon

1996)

and

Wong

2004)

indicate hat

xperi-

mental

groups

that

received

xplicit

nformationlone

performed

o

differently

n

interpretation

nd

production

ests

han control

roup

did. But other

positions

re also

possible.

have

argued

that

explicit

knowledge

s used

in the

process

f

formulating

essages

s well

as

in

monitoring

nd that

many

earners re adroit

n

accessing

heir

xplicit

memories or

these

purposes,

specially

f the rules

are,

to

a

degree,

automatised.

However,

his

does

require

time.Yuan and

Ellis

(2003)

showed that earners'grammatical ccuracy mproved ignificantlyf

they

had

timefor

on-line

lanning

hile

performing

narrative

ask,

result most

readily explained

in

terms of

their

accessing

explicit

knowledge.

Irrespective

f whether

xplicit

knowledge

as

any

value

in

and

of

itself,

t

may

ssist

anguagedevelopment

yfacilitating

he

development

of

mplicit nowledge.

his

ssue

s

addressed

y

the

second

of the two

questions.

t

concernswhathas become known

s the

nterfaceypothesis,

which addressesthe role

explicitknowledge lays

n

L2

acquisition.

Three

positions

an

be identified.

ccording

o the

noninterface

osition

(Krashen,1981), explicit nd implicit nowledge re entirely istinct

with heresult hat

xplicit nowledge

annot

be converted

nto

mplicit

knowledge.

This

position

s

supported by

research

suggesting

hat

96

TESOL

QUARTERLY



16/26

explicit

nd

implicit

memories

re

neurologicallyeparate

(Paradis,

1994).

The

interfaceosition

rgues

he exact

opposite.Drawing

n

skill-

learning heory, eKeyser 1998) arguesthatexplicitknowledge e-

comes

mplicit

nowledge

f

earners ave

the

opportunity

or

plentiful

communicative

ractice.

he weak

nterface

osition

Ellis, 1993)

claims

that

explicit

knowledge

an convert nto

implicitknowledge

f the

learner s

ready

o

acquire

the

targeted

eature

nd

that

his

onversion

occurs

by

priming

number f

key cquisitional rocesses,

n

particular

noticing

nd

noticing

he

ap

Schmidt, 990).

That

s,

explicit nowledge

of a

grammatical

tructure

akes t more

ikely

hat

earnerswill ttend

to the

structure

n the

input

and

carry

ut the

cognitive

omparison

between

what

they

bserve

n

the

input

nd their wn

output.

These

positionsontinue o be argued t a theoreticalevel.Althoughhere s

plentiful

vidence

hat

xplicit

nstruction

s

effective

n

promoting

2

learning

e.g.,

Noms

&

Ortega,

2000)

no

published tudy

as

directly

tested

whether

xplicit

nowledge

onverts

irectly

nto

mplicit

nowl-

edge

or

simply

acilitates

ts

development.

ne reason for the

lack

of

research

s the

problem

of

measurement,

hat

is,

the

difficulty

f

ascertaining

hich

ype

f

knowledge

earners

mploy

when

they er-

form

language

ask

r test.

The three

positions

upport

ery

ifferent

pproaches

to

language

teaching.

he noninterface

osition

eads

to a zero

rammarpproach,that

s,

t

prioritizes

eaning-centredpproaches

uch s immersionnd

task-based

eaching.

he interface

osition upports

PP

the dea that

a

grammatical

tructure

hould

be

first

resented xplicitly

nd then

practised

ntil

t s

fully

roceduralised.

he weak nterface

osition

lso

lends

upport

o

techniques

hat

nduce earners

o

attend o

grammati-

cal features.

t has been

used to

provide

basis

for

onsciousness-raising

tasks hat

require

earners o derive heir

wn

explicit rammar

ules

from ata

they

re

provided

with

Ellis,

1993;

Fotos,

994).

t s

ikely

hat

all three

approaches

will

continue to attract

upporters,

rawing

n

differentheoriesof L2 acquisition nd citingresearch that lends

indirect

upport

to

the

preferred pproach.

It is

unlikely

hat this

controversy

ill

be resolved

hrough

esearch

n

the near future.

The third

uestion

ssumes here s value

n

explicit nowledge

nd

addresses

how

best

to

teach it.

In

deductive

eaching, grammatical

structure

s

presented

nitially

nd then

practised

n

one

way

r

another;

this s the first

in

the

present-practise-produce

equence.

n

inductive

teaching,

earners re

first

xposed

to

exemplars

f the

grammatical

structure

nd are

asked to arrive

t a

metalinguisticeneralisation

n

their

wn;

here

may

r

may

notbe a final

xplicit

tatementf

the

rule.

A number f studies see Erlam, 003,for review) ave examined he

relative ffectiveness

f these wo

pproaches

o

teaching xplicit

nowl-

edge.

The results ave

been

mixed.

or

example,

Herron

nd

Tomosello

CURRENT

ISSUES IN

THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR 97



17/26

(1992)

found clear

advantage

or

nductive

nstruction,

obinson

(1996)

found hat deductive

pproach

asmore

ffective,

hile osa

and O'Neill (1999) foundno significantifferencen effectiveness.

Erlam's

2003)

own

tudy

evealed

significant

dvantage

or he

group

receiving

eductivenstruction.

erhaps

hemain esson

o be

learned

from he

researcho date

s

theneedfor differentiated

pproach

o

both

esearching

nd

teaching

xplicit

nowledge.

t

s

ikely

hat

many

variables

ffect

hich

pproach

earners enefit

most

rom,

ncluding

the

specific

tructurehat s the

target

f the instruction

nd the

learners'

ptitude

or

grammaticalnalysis.imple

ules

may

estbe

taught

eductively,

hilemore

complex

ules

may

best

be

taught

inductively.

earners

killed

n

grammaticalnalysis

re

likely

o fare

better ith ninductivepproachhan hose ess killed.

IS THERE A

BEST WAYTO TEACH

GRAMMAR

FOR IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE?

To

answer his

uestion

t

s

necessary

o

identify

he nstructional

options

or

eaching rammar.

have

ttempted

his

n

a number

f

publications

e.g.,

llis

1997,

998,

002b).5

will

onsider

ust

two:

he

differenceetweennput-basedndproduction-basednstructionnd

between

ifferent

ypes

fcorrectiveeedback.

The case

for he

nput-basedption

s based

on a

computational

model f

L2

acquisition,ccording

o

which

cquisition

akes

lace

s a

product

f

learners

omprehending

nd

processing

nput.

uch

ap-

proaches,

hen irectedt

grammar,

eek odraw

earners'ttentiono

the

argeted

tructure

s)

in

one or more

ways:imply

y ontriving

or

numerous

xemplars

f the structure

s)

to be

present

n

the

nput

materials,

y

highlighting

he

target

tructure

s)

in some

way e.g.,

by

using

oldor talics

n

written

exts)

or

by

means f

nterpretation

asks

(Ellis, 995)directed tdrawingearners'ttentionoform-meaning

mappings.

anPatten

1996,

003)

has

developed

version

f he

nput-

based

option

hat e calls

nput rocessing

nstruction.

his s directed

t

helping

earners o overcome he

defaultrocessing

trategies

hat re

a

feature f

interlanguagese.g., assuming

hat

the first

oun

in a

sentence

s

always

he

gent)

A

casefor he

utput-based

ption

anbe

found

n

both

kill-buildingheory

see

previous

iscussion)

r

in a

sociocultural

heory

f

L2

learning,ccording

o which

earning

rises

5

1 distinguishbetween psycholinguisticnd methodologicaloptions (cf. Ellis, 1998).

Psycholinguistic

ptions

re

related to some model of

L2

acquisition.

Methodologicalptions

re

evident n

instructionalmaterials

or

eachinggrammar.

Here

I

consider

only

psycholinguistic

options.

98

TESOL

QUARTERLY



18/26

out

of social nteraction hich caffoldsearners'

ttempts

o

produce

new

grammatical

tructures

Ohta, 2001).

A

number

of

studieshave

compared herelativeffectivenessf nput-basedndproduction-based

instruction,

ith

mixed

results,

esulting

n

ongoing

debate

about the

relative

merits fthese wo

ptions

VanPatten,

002;

DeKeyser,

alaberry,

Robinson,

&

Harrington,

002).

It

may

be

that,

n

classrooms,

his

comparison

s

ultimately eaningless

ecause,

n

practise,

oth

options

are

likely

o nvolve

nput-processing

nd

production.

or

example,

t s

quite

conceivable

hat

n

an

input-basedpproach,

ndividual

tudents

silently roduce

the

target

tructure,

hile

n

a

production-based

p-

proach,

an utterance

produced by

one student erves as

input

for

another.

t

is,

therefore,

ot

surprising

hat both

options

have been

shown o resultnacquisition.6

There is a rich

descriptive

iterature n corrective

eedback

i.e.,

teacher

responses

o learner

rrors)

but

remarkably

ew tudies

have

investigated

he relative ffectsf different

ypes

f feedback

n

acquisi-

tion.

Key ptions

re

(a)

whether hefeedback s

mplicit

r

explicit

nd

(b)

whether he

feedback s

nput

r

output

ased.

mpliciteedback

ccurs

when

hecorrective

orce f the

response

o earner rror

s

masked,

or

example,

recast,

hich

reformulates

deviant tterance

orrecting

t

while

keeping

he same

meaning:

NNS:Why e svery nhappy?

NS:

Why

s he

very

nhappy

NNS: Yeah

why

s

very nhappy? Philp,

2003)

Or,

as

in

this contrived

xample,

a

request

for clarification:

NNS:

Why

he is

very nhappy?

NS:

Sorry?

NNS:

Why

s

he

very nhappy?

Expliciteedbackakes number fforms,uch as direct orrection r

metalinguisticxplanation.

here is some evidencethat

explicit

eed-

back

s more effective

n

both

eliciting

he earner's mmediate

orrect

use

of the tructurend

in

elicitingubsequent

orrect

se,

for

xample,

in a

post-test

Carroll

& Swain

993;

Lyster

004).

But

omeevidence

nd

6

There is

also

controversyegarding

how to measure the effectivenessf

these two

and

other)

instructional

ptions.

Norris nd

Ortega

(2000)

have shown that

the effectivenessf

instruction aries

depending

on whether t is measured

using

metalinguisticudgements,

selected

response,

onstrained

onstructed

esponse,

r freeconstructed

esponse.

Most

SLA

researchers and teachers, too, perhaps) would consider the last of these the most valid

measure.Ellis

2002a)

reviewed

number f

tudies hat xamined the effects f

different inds

of

instruction n learners'freeconstructed

esponses, eporting

hat

nstruction an have an

effect

n this

ype

f

anguage

use.

CURRENT ISSUES

IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

99



19/26

some

strong

heoretical easons xist o

support mplicit

eedback

see

Long

1996,

n

press).

ndeed,

this

ype

f feedback

s more

compatible

with hefocus-on-formpproachdiscussed arlier ecause tensures hat

learnersare more

likely

o

stay

focused on

meaning.

However,

s

Muranoi

2000)

notes,

mplicit

eedback

s

probably

more ffectivehen

it

is

targeted ntensively

t a

preselected

ormthan

when

it occurs

extensively

n

ncidental

ocus n form.

n

the

atter,

xplicit

ttention

o

form

may

be moreeffective.

Input-basedeedback

odels the

correct

orm

orthe earner

e.g., by

meansof

a

recast).

Output-based

eedback

licits

roduction

f

the

correct

form rom he learner

e.g., by

means of a

request

for

clarification).

Again,

here

s

disagreement

bout therelative ffectiveness

f

these

wo

feedback ptionsand no clear evidenceforchoosingbetween hem.

Some

descriptive

tudies ave

hown hat

utput-based

eedback

s more

likely

o lead to learners

orrecting

heirown initial

rroneous

utter-

ances

n

what

s referredo as

uptake.

owever,

ptake

s not the ame

as

acquisition.

In

short,

lthough

considerable

progress

has been

made toward

identifying

hose instructional

options

that are

likely

to

be

of

psycholinguistic

ignificance,

s

yet,

ew onclusions

an

be drawn bout

which nes are themost ffective

or

cquisition.

t

s

possible

o

point

o

studies nd theoretical

rguments

hat

uggest

hat

ach of the

major

options

iscussed an contributeo

acquisition.

SHOULD

GRAMMAR

BE

TAUGHT

IN SEPARATE LESSONS

OR INTEGRATED

INTO

COMMUNICATIVE

ACTIVITIES?

In Ellis

(2001)

I

considered

three broad

types

of form-focused

instruction,

s

shown

n Table

1.

Focus

on forms

efers o

instruction

involving structure-of-the-daypproach,wherethestudents' rimary

focus

s

on

form

i.e.,

accuracy)

nd where

the activities

re

directed

intensively

t

a

single

grammatical

tructure.

his

approach,

then,

involves

eaching rammar

n

a

series f

separate

essons.

Focus n

form

entails

focus

on

meaning

with ttention

o form

rising

ut of

the

communicative

ctivity.

hisfocus an

be

planned,

here

focused

ask

s

required

to elicit occasions

for

using

a

predetermined

rammatical

structure,s,

for

xample,

n

Samuda

2001).

In

this

pproach,

ttention

to

the

predetermined

rammatical

tructures

ill also

be

intensive.

Alternatively,

ocus

n form an

be

incidental

here

ttention

o form

n

thecontext fa communicative

ctivity

s not

predetermined

ut rather

occurs

n

accordancewith he

participants'

inguistic

eeds

s the

ctivity

100

TESOL

QUARTERLY



20/26

TABLE

1

Types

of

Form-Focused nstruction

Type

Primary

ocus

Distribution

1. Focus n forms

Form

Intensive

2.

Planned ocus n

form

Meaning

Intensive

3.

Incidentalocus

n form

Meaning

Extensive

Note. his

able s-

dapted

rom

llis

2001,

p.

17).

proceeds.

n this

pproach,

t

is

likely

hat ttention ill

be

given

o

a

wide

variety

f

grammatical

tructures

uring ny

one

task nd thus

will

be extensive. ocus on form

mplies

no

separategrammar

essonsbut

rather

grammar

eaching ntegrated

nto a

curriculum

onsisting

f

communicative

asks.

There

is

considerable

heoretical

isagreement egarding

whichof

these

ypes

f nstruction

s most

ffective

n

developing

mplicit

nowl-

edge. Long

(1988,

1991)

and

Doughty

2001)

have

argued

trongly

hat

focus

n form

s

best

equipped

to

promote nterlanguage

evelopment

because

the

acquisition

of

implicitknowledge

ccurs as a

resultof

learners

ttending

o

linguistic

orm

t the same time

hey

re

engaged

withunderstandingnd producingmeaningfulmessages.Other re-

searchers,however,

ave

argued

that a focus-on-forms

pproach

is

effective.

eKeyser

1998),

for

example,

has

argued

that

grammatical

structuresre learned

gradually hrough

he automatisationf

explicit

knowledge

nd that

his an be

achieved

by

means

of

a

focus-on-forms

approach.

This

approach

acknowledges

he value of

teaching

xplicit

knowledge

nd

subsequently roceduralising

t

by

means of

activities

(drills

nd

tasks)

that

practise

ehaviours

i.e.,

involve

meaning)

rather

than

structures.t is worth

oting,

owever,

ne

point

of

agreement

n

thesedifferent

ositions:

nstruction

eeds to ensurethat

earners re

able to connectgrammatical orms o the meanings heyrealise n

communication.

o

far,

hedebatehas addressed he

difference

etween

focus

n form nd focus n

forms.

herehas been ittle

iscussion fthe

relativemerits

f

planned

and incidental

ocus

on form. n

effect,

his

discussion

would nvolve consideration f whether

nstructionhould

be intensive r

extensive,

question

we have

already

onsidered.

CONCLUSION

Grammar asheldand continues o hold a central

lace

in

language

teaching.

he zero

grammar pproach

was flirted ith ut

never

eally

CURRENT SSUES

IN THE TEACHINGOF

GRAMMAR

101



21/26

took

hold,

s is evident

n

both he urrent extbookmaterials

manating

from

ublishing

ouses

(e.g.,

Whitney

White,

001)

and

in

current

theories fL2 acquisition. here sampleevidence o demonstratehat

teaching rammar

orks.

Although

here s

now

clear onvictionhat traditional

pproach

o

teaching rammar

ased on

explicit

xplanations

nd drill-like

ractice

is

unlikely

o result n

the

acquisition

f the

mplicit

nowledge

eeded

for

luent nd accurate

ommunication,

here

ontinues

o

be

disagree-

ment

egarding

hat hould

replace

this. t seems

ppropriate,

hen,

o

finish

with statement f

my

own beliefs bout

grammar

eaching,

acknowledging

hat

many

f them emain

ontroversial:

1. The

grammar aught

hould

be one that

mphasises

ot

ust

form

butalso the

meanings

nd uses of different

rammatical

tructures.

2.

Teachers hould ndeavour

o

focus

n those

grammatical

tructures

that

re known

o

be

problematic

o earners ather

han

ry

o teach

the

whole

of

grammar.

3. Grammars best

taught

o earnerswho

have

already cquired

ome

ability

o use the

anguage

i.e.,

intermediate

evel)

rather han to

complete beginners.

However,

rammar

an be

taughtthrough

corrective eedback s soon

as

learners

egin

to

use the

anguage

productively.

4. Afocus-on-forms

pproach

s valid s

long

as it ncludes n

opportu-

nity

or earners

o

practise

ehaviour

n

communicative

asks.

5. Consideration hould be

given

to

experimenting

ith a

massed

rather handistributed

pproach

to

teaching rammar.

6. Use should be made of both

nput-based

nd

output-based

nstruc-

tional

ptions.

7.

A

case

exists or

eaching xplicit

rammatical

nowledge

s a means

of

assisting

ubsequent

cquisition

f

mplicit

nowledge.

eaching

explicit nowledge

an

be

incorporated

nto

both

a focus-on-forms

and a focus-on-form

pproach.

In the case of a focus-on-forms

approach,

differentiated

pproach

nvolving

ometimes

Documents

Rod Ellis a SLA Perspective