|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How important is grammar in second language acquisition? |
| Essential |
|
38% |
[ 10 ] |
| Very Important |
|
30% |
[ 8 ] |
| Somewhat Important |
|
23% |
[ 6 ] |
| Not Very Important |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
| Not At All Important |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
| Author |
Message |
richard ame
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Republic of Turkey
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:26 am Post subject: who needs Grammar? |
 |
|
Hi Forum
I was watching with detached interest this thread ,it seems a large group of your think that Grammar is what learning a second language is all about and a fair few of you think otherwise,and on top of that you quote this and that author and other linguistic gurus to support your case,but , none of you so far have spoken from your OWN experience of the students you have met and taught and what difference (if any) grammar has made to their use and fluency of English .
From my own personal experience the best students I have had were drowned in lessons and drills using the dreaded G word not by me I hasten to add hate the stuff never touch it ,not when theres the four other skills to teach why do I need to teach grammar ? When our mothers sat us upon her knee and taught us words like cat and mat what tense was she using ? Did it make any difference ? Turkish students know very little about Turkish grammar but that doesn't prevent them from learning their own language ,most native speakers outside the teaching industry have no idea what a passive or active voice is or any other label you would care to mention but language strength is not diminished . Therefore I would conclude that although grammar rules need to be brought to the learners attention they are not the be all of second language learning ,how many times have come across learners who were grammatically excellent but were unable to communicate ,I rest my case . |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bertrand
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 293
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:45 am Post subject: A reply to Richard Ame |
|
|
I know it is probably because you are busy and maybe not even too interested, but do you think you could put just a tad more effort into your writing. At the moment (for me at least) it is really hard to parse and process.
On a more general point, I would remind you (again) of knowing that type knowledge and knowing how type knowledge. Your remark that Turkish speakers don't know the grammar of Turkish is crazy. So, according to you they randomly assign meanings and structures to clauses they produce and interpret, plucking random units of sound out of the air. I think what you mean is not this (as only an insane lunatic would claim this) but rather that IF YOU ASKED THEM TO EXPLAIN THE RULES ETC. TO YOU THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO. But this is far from novel and was commented upon many, many centuries ago. I don't know how to explain to you how I lift up my glass of beer, but I know how to do it. I (really) don't know how I form the interpretation that the 'concerned' in the Noun Phrase of (1) and (2) below is of a radically different nature but I do (and so do all other native speakers of, in this case, English):
1) ....the concerned people...
2) ...the people concerned...
How do I know? Well, it is not due to culture or vague notions of analogy; rahter, it's grammar all the way to the bone. (This, in fact, is yet another class of ADJs that needs to be added to the list previously begun.)
Look at (3):
3) * cat mat on sat the the
If a speaker of English knows to rearrange these lexical items into (4):
4) The cat sat on the mat
then they do actually 'know' grammar, in this case, (advanced) syntactical operations (from the point of formal programming languages at least).
Ultimately, then, the 'question' as to whether grammar is important or not really is an incoherent question. It is like asking 'Is a football needed for football?' Without the ball there is no game. The question, then, is HOW should grammar be taught? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richard ame
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Republic of Turkey
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:57 am Post subject: CORRECTİON |
|
|
| In plain language mate that sounds like a lot of physco babble that most people let alone learners would have difficulty understanding. Your pompous theories may sound good to you must I wasn't impressed. I do believe that meaniful contexts given in digestable chunks is going to produce a better learner quicker ,the question was NOT how it should be taught but if it needs to be taught at all ,I think I made my views on that one clear enough . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertrand
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 293
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:09 am Post subject: Re: CORRECTİON |
|
|
| richard ame wrote: |
| In plain language mate that sounds like a lot of physco babble that most people let alone learners would have difficulty understanding. Your pompous theories may sound good to you must I wasn't impressed. I do believe that meaniful contexts given in digestable chunks is going to produce a better learner quicker ,the question was NOT how it should be taught but if it needs to be taught at all ,I think I made my views on that one clear enough . |
On the contrary, to me at least, your writings could not be less clear (or less accurate). If you really think that I would teach or try to teach anything from this forum in any way expressed in this forum then I don't think you acknowledge the fact that we, as people, talk to different people in different ways (it's termed 'register'). Believe it or not, there are people on this forum who do not draw attention to the way I speak or write - and I don't notice anything odd about their language either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richard ame
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Republic of Turkey
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:55 am Post subject: Quotes |
|
|
Dear Bert
How do you do that? Make those cute little boxes that say he said this or she said that a nice little trend that really pisses me off it assumes the readers of this post haven't read the previous posts ,don't you think ? or do you ??
As your name suggests you are a puffed up pompous ass who can't give a straight answer to an even straighter question ,but as you said earlier I don't have the time or interest to play verbal tennis with you if thats all you think this forum is about .Try again I will always have the last word . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 15343
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:59 am Post subject: Bertrand ? |
|
|
Bertrand
Like your hero Chomsky you suffer from verbosity.
Try to be a bit shorter if you want people to read what you write.
Have a nice day.
Last edited by scot47 on Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richard ame
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Republic of Turkey
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:16 am Post subject: Touche! |
|
|
thanks Scott
Thats just what I was gonna say if he came back to me ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda L.
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bertrand there is no doubt that you are an intellectual but along the way you missed one of the most important lessons of life.
Try a basic class in "how to be a human being and stop being a condescending S.O.B." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 15343
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:31 am Post subject: !@#$&*****! |
|
|
Bertrand
And people on this forum used to think that scot47 was a nasty piece of work !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda L.
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I read it, some still do Scott!  NOT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Capergirl
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 1232
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:13 am Post subject: Re: The Grammar Debate |
|
|
| Bertrand wrote: |
| Capergirl wrote: |
Even "mother tongue" English speakers (elementary school and junior high school students, in particular) need to learn the rules of the English language. |
What do you mean by "even"? Have you ever studied these aspects of L2 acquisition? Have you ever even so much as spent 5 minutes thinking about it? (Or do you just have a 3 week TEFL course certificate thereby making you think you possess expertise?) |
It was a 5 week course actually.  No, I do not think I "possess expertise". Do you?
| Bertrand wrote: |
| Capergirl wrote: |
| These "rules" include correct pronunciation |
The human infant has the (innate) ability to perceive differences of sound due to maybe a single feature as regards place or manner of articulation and their ability goes well beyond that of a trained, adult phonologist (as evinced by infants who are exposed to Hindi and who come to distinguish between aspirated and non-aspirated /p/. This ability, however, falls into a state of entropy around 6 months.
| Capergirl wrote: |
| spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and eventually, paragraph organization and essay format. Second language acquisition should not be any different. How does one learn to read, write, and speak a language properly without learning the basic structures of the language? Can a language simply be absorbed as though by osmosis? |
Yes, by infants within the critical period. You really need to conduct some (introductory) reading in child language acquisition before you start lecturing on second language learning (which, I presume, you have never studied for more than, say, 40 hours). Although 'motherese' is a central feature of western middle class societies, on many cultures around the globe infants do not benefit from any special registers and, in fact, in some cultures documented both by generative linguists and anthropological researchers they are not even spoken to!
What I find most laughable about you and your post is the underlying assumption that, since you have a three week TEFL course under your belt, your lay thoughts and intuitions are accurate and of interest to anyone. Although the latter may well be true, the former, I am afraid, is not.
Have you, for example, ever looked at empirical data collected from language learners? Have you ever collected any under the guidance of a L2 professor such as Krashen, Young-Scholten, or Schwartz? Have you ever conducted experiments? If you had then you would know that, totally contrary to what all the TEFLers think, all learners of the same language go through the same stages - in the same order - regardless of their native language (this is same as infants, though the stages and their respective orderings are different). I don't expect you to believe me, but I would have expected you to conduct just an inkling of basic secondary research before becoming a self-appointed expert in second language learning (!) |
Listen, Bertrand, I did not anywhere state that I am an expert in second language learning. I'm an ESL instructor like the vast majority of posters here and as such, I have put forth my opinion on a subject that is of interest to me. This is a discussion forum and the above is a topic for discussion...no more, no less. My opinion is based mainly on three things: (1) My experiences as a first language learner; (2) My experiences as a second language learner; and (3) My experiences as an instructor of a second language. My knowledge base is practical, not theoretical. I do not have a PhD, but that does not mean I am not entitled to have an opinion and to share that opinion. You are certainly free to have a contrasting view, Bertrand, but it is too bad that you cannot do so without condescending to the person with whom you disagree. Have you ever heard the expression, "It is better to be kind than to be right"?
| Bertrand wrote: |
And how, for example, do you teach the grammar of, say English adjectives? Do you draw the distinction between predicative and attributive adjectives? Or do you, just like all the other TEFLers, merely repeat in an Orwellian 'duck-speak' style that "in English, adjectives precede the noun, or nouns, they modify, etc. (In fact, there is a post here at this forum that claims just that!)
There are, in fact, many different classes of adjectives in a natural language such as English. The first class of adjectives are those that can only take a predicative syntactic role and which, when employed in an attributive fashion render the clause ungrammatical. 'Awake' is a great example. Thus whilst (1) below is acceptable to a native speaker of English, (2) is not:
1) The boy is awake.
2) * The awake boy.
'Asleep' is another great example of a strict assignment to the class of attributive adjestives:
3) The boy is asleep.
4) * The asleep boy.
Despite such (uncontroversial) data, most, if not all, TEFLers I have observed invariably claim (yawn) that "in English adjectives precede the noun they modify." I have shown that even a brief 5 second appraisal of the facts shows this to NOT BE THE CASE. ('Grammar' books, too, are often guilty of such oversimplifications.)
Other adjectives (ADJs) can ONLY be attributive when they themselves are further qualified. 'Ill' is a classic example. Thus, although native speakers accept (5):
5) The boy is ill.
they do not accept (6), which speakers of most dialects of English consider to be ill-formed:
6) The ill boy.
Now, example no.6 DOES engender differing insights from different speakers, but no one person would reject (7) where 'ill' has been inserted into a compex construction:
7) The chronically ill boy.
You should be advising your students to make lists of different classes of ADJs in English and to add to these lists upon encountering a new ADJ. It does not do to claim that people such as myself are in some fashion 'obsessed with grammar' (a claim made elsewhere to which I shall not respond). Imagine if you were not 'a teacher' of English, but rather of, say, history. If you were teaching your students that the Second World War ended in 1946 you would expect to be told to try to be somewhat more accurate, right? Why should language be any different? You think all because you have never thought about it that it is not true and/or that you should not teach your students?
Still further ADJs can be placed both in a attributive and a predicative frame. 'Good' is a clear example:
 The good boy.
9) The boy is good.
Others can do this, too, though only with a resultant (and radical) change of meaning. Consider 'heavy' in the attributive frame of (10) and in the predicative frame of (11):
10) The heavy smoker.
11) The smoker is heavy.
Whereas (10) refers to the individual who smokes heavily, (11), in stark contrast, refers to the smokers bodyweight.
If you want to teach grammar then I suggest you research every single aspect of the language you are to teach SO THAT you can teach it (before you say 'that is obvious' I am afraid to say that most - if not all - of the TEFLers I have observed in China do not have a clue as to language structure and, furthermore, do not want to know! They would rather take the easy route and claim that such things 'are of no importance' (that is, the structure of the language that they are supposed to be teaching and that their students are supposed to be learning from their teacher, in fact, PAYING to learn, is of no importance!)
Remember also that you must draw your students' attention to what particular feature of an obect or event the ADJ is modifying. For example, that to which 'hard' refers in 'a hard book' is very different to that to which it refers in 'a hard rock'. A small moon may not be small in itself and some ADJs actually negate: 'a toy gun' is a great example as it is not in fact a gun. |
My students are at an intermediate level. I do feel that teaching grammar is important in learning a second language and shouldn't be omitted at the intermediate and advanced levels (not kindergarten students or beginners of any age). At the same time, however, I do not think that students should be drowned in grammar. The point is to teach what is necessary to make language acquisition easier, not to overload students with useless information.
| richard ame wrote: |
| I was watching with detached interest this thread ,it seems a large group of your think that Grammar is what learning a second language is all about and a fair few of you think otherwise,and on top of that you quote this and that author and other linguistic gurus to support your case,but , none of you so far have spoken from your OWN experience of the students you have met and taught and what difference (if any) grammar has made to their use and fluency of English . |
Great point, Richard. My current students (18-19 years old & from the UAE) have improved markedly since February, when I began teaching them. These students will soon begin training with other Canadian students to become marine engineers, so they will be expected to keep up. I've noticed huge improvements in their speaking, reading, and writing since February and I have to give a fair amount of credit to the grammar classes. Nonetheless, I agree that grammar is not the only aspect of ESL/EFL and maybe not even the most important one. I would venture to say that comprehension is the biggest area in which my students have shown gains over the past months. They are much better able to express themselves and they are now able to understand native speakers with ease. Grammar is only one part of what I teach them. We do a lot of reading and writing, listening and speaking, CALL, ESP (in this case, English for Nautical Students), technical writing and presentation, and multicultural conversation classes with students of other nationalities. The grammar takes up a mere 2.5 hours out of 22 classroom hours. Grammar is important, in my humble non-expert opinion, but it is not the "whole enchilada" by any means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richard ame
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Republic of Turkey
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:46 am Post subject: Grammar is only 30% |
|
|
| Great reply Capergirl the only other point I wanted to make was in our recent proficiency exams at the Uni reading comprehension was responsible for 70% of the mark ,the rest you guessed was grammar ,don't ask about the writing and speaking thats a different story . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chinagirl
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 235
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 2:38 pm Post subject: intellectuals, teaching, etc. |
|
|
Capergirl,
I give you credit for attempting to have a civil thread and seeking to improve your teaching ability.
By looking at your last post, I would venture to hypothesize that all of the contextual reading and writing, and ESP may have led to the marked improvement that you have been seeing. From my own teaching experience, I know that (especially in Asia) students the world over are pounded with grammar from junior high on and still do not achieve communicative proficiency. However, after an extended period of time with "comprehensible input" (say, a period of time abroad, or a good communicative class) students will learn English. Is that to say we should never teach grammar? From my own classes I have learned that giving contextual examples works best for me. Pure grammar is not particularly interesting and does not encourage communication.
As others have cited him, I would suggest that you read Stephen Krashen's work about the Natural Approach and Second Language Acquisition. He has good explanations and reasoning against explicit grammar teaching (although he has more recently stated that he is not against *all* grammar teaching.)
For our esteemed colleage Dr. Bertrand, I would suggest that you realize that this is a teaching forum and that a Ph.D in Linguistics is not necessary to becoming a good language teacher. Teachers are people who are encouraging and patient with people who want to learn. Teachers help others to gain self confidence do not belittle or ridicule their students in order to prop up their own egos. You seem to have a reputation around here for being pompous and condescending. It's a shame, because you really could be a resource for teachers who wanted to learn more about linguistics. I encourage you to work on your teaching skills a little more if you intend on being a presence in a forum dedicated to teachers.
Let's get back to the original question, all. Do you teach grammar in your lessons? Do your students acquire English because of it? Are you in favor of explicit grammar teaching? Or not?
How can we teach grammar lessons in a more natural, contextual fashion?
What do you all do in your classrooms? Please tell us where you teach, and what the ages/levels are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celeste
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Fukuoka City, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
chinagirl-
Here are my answers to your questions:
| Quote: |
| Do you teach grammar in your lessons? |
I try to include some grammar teaching in all of my lessons. I think it is really important for students to get past the point of making English utterances and move them towards being able to express complex ideas in English.
| Quote: |
| Do your students acquire English because of it? |
I always think of it as a tool for expression, not acquisition. There comes a point, though where all the vocabulary in the world will not help them if they can't put it together meaningfully.
| Quote: |
| Are you in favor of explicit grammar teaching? Or not? |
I am in favour of it as a shortcut. Some students can learn through reading and listening to examples of correct English, but others need the rules laid out for them in a clear fashion. Depending on how intuitive my students are I will teach more or less explicit grammar in a class.
| Quote: |
| How can we teach grammar lessons in a more natural, contextual fashion? What do you all do in your classrooms? |
My current method is really topic and grammar based. I take a topic that I plan to teach, for example self introductions (for some reason, my Japanese employers and colleagues really want to do this topic a lot!) and then I put together a model conversation that I think the students will be able to handle. After that I choose one or two grammar points from the conversation to emphasize. Often, I will emphasize the same grammar point over a series of topic based lessons so that students can really start to feel comfortable with it. I usually start my lessons by asking students to tell me any words or phrases that they know in English or Japanese that are related to the topic (as I am still learning Japanese, this can be a real challenge for me with my beginner classes- I know, I shouldn't use L1 in the classroom, but it does get the ball rolling or we'd just sit there staring at each other awkwardly for an hour). After that, I usually present the model conversation and have them practice it. Then they practice it with substitutions, then I do some substitution drill exercises. After that, I usually try to get them to make up a few sentences on the fly, and if I think they need me to state the grammar point, I will. Then I try to have them do a communicative activity (I like to use the series communication games by Jill Hadfield) and often finish with a writing activity.
| Quote: |
| Please tell us where you teach, and what the ages/levels are. |
THe above description is the way I teach adults in Japan. My current teaching assignment is at an in-service training centre for teachers. I generally teach elementary school teachers who have little or no background in English, but I sometimes teach Junior highschool teachers whose English is at a high intermediate to lower advanced level. I also teach elementary school, but at that age, there is much less need to teach grammar as they are pretty intuitive about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chinagirl
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 235
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:51 pm Post subject: useful books |
|
|
Celeste,
Have you seen Penny Ur's books? They are great for those short communicative activities that you mention.
I renetly bought Five-Minute Activities : A Resource Book of Short Activities off of Amazon, and it's great: well organized and easy to use. It contains over 100 warm-ups and bridge activities that require little preparation, contains both old favorites and new ideas. My favorite thing about the book is that it's a small, slim paperback - very portable for teachers!
Another new book that just came out by Ur is
Grammar Practice Activities : A Practical Guide for Teachers. Amazon describes it as a "a detailed guide containing nearly two-hundred imaginative and useful communicative grammar practice activities."
I haven't seen it, but it looks like a nice resource.
Celeste, your "topic based" classes sound like a perfect way to encourage natural language use. I agree that pointing out grammar points in context is effective, especially for Japanese students. My concern as a teacher is keeping it to a minimum, like you stated, pointed it out when it seems relevant.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
