Job Discussion Forums

Trinley · Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Posts: 144

Hello,

I'd like to get a broader range of opinions on this debate:

I was recently surprised to hear an ESL teacher purport that prescriptive grammar has no place in L2 language education, that students only need to 'use the language', which they will learn to do from good teacher modelling.

How many of you teach entirely through modelling standard use, never expecting students to know the proper terms for grammatical elements (as in, never saying 'this is the past perfect, review the irregular past participles, etc)?

I'm hoping we can use this thread to share ideas, not to undermine others' opinions -- no quote-and-bash, please. Looking forward to reading from you!

scot47 · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Posts: 15343

Students need an explicit knowledge of grammatical terms. The problem seems to be that native speaker teachers under the age of 45 would not know a verb if it bit them on the b** !

TwinCentre · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 273 Location: Mokotow

Have I got this wrong or are you confusing the term 'prescriptive' grammar?

I thought it refered to an idealized model of how people should speak grammatically rather than modeling how they actually speak (descriptive grammar)???

Descriptive grammar seems to be what Cambridge ESOL exams are based on, and they still expect students to know the ins and outs of grammar and grammatical terms, it is just that the end game is to produce natural language as reflected by the majority of native speakers - regardless of the traditional prescriptive rules (never break an infinitive) etc etc.

Help! Now I am confused!

spiral78 · Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash

Krashen proposed that 'graded input' was both necessary and sufficient.

Merill Swain's research found that graded input is necessary - but not necessarily sufficient.

I'm in a bit of a rush - but if you google Swain, you'll find massive research on the topic.

I agree with the 'descriptive grammar' comment - major tests, including Cambridge, IELTS, and TOEFL tend to require the learner to have a strong command of the metalanguage of grammar, as opposed to a good command of grammar to communicate meaning clearly.

I am not a fan of teaching to tests - but the reality is that some students must take the dratted things!

the_thinker · Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 68

Dedicated · Joined: 18 May 2007 Posts: 972 Location: UK

Both kinds of grammar - descriptive and prescriptive- are concerned with rules, but in different ways. Specialists in descriptive grammar (usually linguists) study the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases,clauses and sentences.

On the other hand, prescriptive grammarians (such as most editors and teachers) lay out rules about what they believe to be the "correct" or" incorrect" use of language. These prescriptive grammarians prefer giving practical advice about using language - straightforward rules to help us avoid making errors.

The Cambridge main suite of exams, PET,FCE, CAE and CPE all have sections in the Use of English checking grammar, word formation, completion of phrases, phrasal verbs etc, and in the Writing papers, especially in IELTS, grammatical range and accuracy are assessed. They don't ask you " terms" but expect you to be able to produce them.

the_thinker · Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 68

Glenski · Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 12844 Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN

Anyone who has ever taught a writing course should realize that if students don't know parts of speech, it is almost impossible to give them instructions and corrective feedback.

In oral communication classes, I introduce parts of speech (bilingual notes), because even though some of the POS are different in the L1 grammar, it still helps a lot to describe certain things.

fluffyhamster · Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:23 am Post subject:

I think the original question should be simply about 'grammar' rather than 'prescriptive grammar' (but hey, if you really want to pursue the latter, then perhaps try searching for 'prescriptiv*' over on the Teacher Discussion forums at least - there are some interesting threads there!).

That's not to say however that prescription doesn't enter into teaching (for example, 'could of' for 'could have' is wrong in pretty much everyone's book, and most people will probably logically opt for 'didn't use to' rather than 'didn't used to', say), but generally 'The description is the prescription' (can't remember who said this though - probably somebody like John Sinclair!).

As for grammar terminology/"metalanguage", teachers need to know the essentials even if their students technically don't.

johnslat · Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:51 am Post subject:

Words are your language tools. While it's not at all necessary for students to have all the "terminology," I think it is important that they know what such things as, say, the parts of speech are and how they function.
A tool is not of much use when you don't know how to use it correctly. Hammers don't remove screws too well.
Regards,
John

Trinley · Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Posts: 144

Unless my linguistics professors failed in teaching me what prescriptive and descriptive grammars are, I do mean prescriptive grammar, as Dedicated lays out the definitions. Other quotes from about.com that may clarify:

"Definition:
A set of norms or rules governing how a language should or should not be used rather than describing the ways in which a language is actually used.

Currently, descriptive grammar is dominant among theorists, but prescriptive grammar is taught in the schools and exercises a range of social effects."

Anyway, the debate was not meant to be about the definition of prescriptive grammar, but about whether you teach grammar rules directly as they are written in grammar books and deemed correct, or whether you just use English with your students and call that 'teaching'.

I agree here:

J.M.A. · Joined: 20 Jan 2009 Posts: 69

J.M.A. · Joined: 20 Jan 2009 Posts: 69

Isla Guapa · Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject:

spiral78 · Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash

She has since converted to Vygotskian sociocultural theory which holds that explicit knowledge of the language system is essential to the learning process. For an example, see her article "Output Hypothesis and Beyond" in Lantolf's "Sociocultural Theory" OUP 2000. There she examines the notion of collaborative dialogue and looks at students who successfully construct knowledge in what is a non-communicative, grammar bound task. She contrasts this with popular approaches where students must always put meaning before focusing on form and then emphasizes the importance of using language to talk about language (ie. metalanguage), in effect coming full circle and adopting a more sophisticated pedagogical perspective (imo). Don't you think it might be a bit simplistic to go around touting task based teaching as a one stop solution for the world's language learning problems?

Oh, I'm entirely in agreement, and do use explicit grammar 'rules' and metalanguage as needed to scaffold meaning - and when the moment seems right to highlight patterns. The form of TBL that I use (which I readily agree is NOT applicable in all teaching contexts!!) incorporates free time in lessons in which to focus explicitly (sometimes I even write on the board:) on grammar and necessary metalanguage. I think the essential distinction for me is that the grammar doesn't form the basis of lesson planning, but supports the lessons.

In my original post on the topic, I did say I was in a hurry and tired Embarassed

I knew I wasn't expressing the idea very clearly! Actually, I'm not very sure I have now, either, but at least I've achieved a slightly more accurate reflection of what I do.