Let Go of the Matrix! - the non-grammar approach

[abufletcher]

First I should make it clear that "question formation" no longer occupies a "place of pride" in my own EFL teaching. If fact I doubt the ultimate meaningfulness of any statement vs. interrogative dichotomy at the level of syntax.

Real-world questions never occur in a vacuum but are always contextualized within situations, sequences, and the action of which they are composed. People don't just "form questions." And that's the way questions should be taught. In context and for a purpose.

On those odd occassions when I do "focus-on-form" it is always "form-in-context" or perhaps more accurately "action-focused-form" along the lines of examining the types of actions carried out via "Do you" type questions (which might turn out to be very different sorts of things than "does he" questions) and the place such lexico-syntactic chunks might occupy in action sequences. One regular locus for such "do" questions is in "pre's" of one sort of another ("Do you have a match/the time/a tennis racquet"). In the real world people very rarely make casual inquiries into "habitual actions."

In orthodox grammar-based (even if this grammar is being taught by induction) EFL, verb formation and word order -- in particular question formation -- are treated as the cornerstones of the entire grammar edifice. Yet, 5 years of intensive involvement with conversational data has yet to suggest that either verb formation or question formation are in any way central to conversational interaction.

BTW, just to get REALLY "Matrix" on you, the other day in an MATESOL class I even found myself suggesting to students that "Not only is there very plausibly no separation between language and language use, but maybe, just maybe, language doesn't exist -- ONLY language use."

This is not as wacky as it first sounds, Neo.

[fluffyhamster]

-----

[abufletcher]

PS. A concordance search of "do+you" vs. "does+he" does indeed suggest some very interesting differences between the action-implicitiveness of these two forms. And this, of course, argues against teaching "question formation" as a stand-alone unit of the "grammar machine."

[abufletcher]

PPS. And of course, "Do you think that's air you're breathing?" was in fact not designed to do questioning at all.

[fluffyhamster]

One interesting outcome of all the work that has been done (and is still being done) on classroom interaction is the realization that the methodology claimed to be in use by the teacher whether it be grammar-translation or communicative approach doesn't always seem to have much of an effect on the structure of the interaction. Some have referred to this observation as "The End of Methodology."

Is the interaction in classrooms therefore pretty much all the same (boring) institutionalized "talk", then, or is there a glimmering of hope (due to truly natural discourse somehow reasserting itself despite the lashings of whatever pedagogy the teacher has been trained to inflict)? I'm an optimist, so I'm trying to hold out for the latter interpretation of your words, but I can't help but feel pessimistic already that the "nature" of the classroom, T-S relationship, the "language" (grammar, structures etc > lockstep syllabus) is still perceived to be such that little real understanding of discourse, let alone genuine discourse itself (other than the purely incidental/accidental/to-be-frowned-upon-cos-we-need-to-get-back-to-something-serious-dammit), ever enters into the "learning" environment.

What I'm basically trying to say is that most teachers probably wouldn't know how to genuinely talk (through extensive preparation, and an ensuing understanding of conversation) to their students for long even if the students pulled the teacher's trousers down and bit him or her on the ass. (Take a look at the thread about 'Dogme' to get an idea of what the hell I'm on about here!).

[fluffyhamster]

Wilco, Morpheus.

[mesmark]

"Not only is there very plausibly no separation between language and language use, but maybe, just maybe, language doesn't exist -- ONLY language use."

I'm going to have to work on that for a little while.

Well, I haven't quite figured out if what I'm doing and tallking about is what Abu is talking about. I'm not as linguistically versed as the rest it would seem.

Here's what I think I do, as best as I can write down all that is going on in my head:
I work with lexical chunks much like Abu has pointed to.
(Do you have)(a dog?) (Do you have)(a brother?) (Do you have)(any money?)
(I went to the station.)
(I went to the park)(to ride bikes with my friends.)
(I went skiing)(yesterday.)

Most of the time they aren't really broken up, so I'm not sure if it's really like those examples above. So, maybe, I use a pseudo-lexical-chunky-non-grammar approach.

I try as best I can to use a system that builds language based on
- what students want to say and ask (primary objective)
- what students need to say and ask (secondary objective)
- what I want them to be able to say (teriary objective)
As they grow and mature those get constantly recycled. What a 5 year old wants to say is much different from what a 8 year old and 10 year old want to say. So, those are not steps but guidelines I use when guiding language learners.

I introduce language use in as real of a situation as I can. Forexample, when I want to start talking about the passive, I don't use 'this letter was written in red ink.' I don't even think, "OK. we need to start working on the passive tense." Instead, it comes to a point where they need to start talking about things that happened to them. I approach the point as things that happened to me/him/her. In class, I use flash cards of people being hit with someting, run over, piched, hugged, kissed, pushed ... I show the pictures and then we discuss them. The language comes out. The students understand without translation or grammar explanation. After a few lessons, they walk away able to talk about what happened to them or someone else. Later down the road, we work on asking about what happened, but it's not so important to them (that falls into the tertiary objective.)

Now if the question is can the students take that and make the letter example, the answer is no. Here's where I think Abu and I agree. They don't need to be able to.

[abufletcher]

Sounds pretty right on to me!

[abufletcher]

Now if the question is can the students take that and make the letter example, the answer is no. Here's where I think Abu and I agree. They don't need to be able to.

"You're doing it Peter, you're doing it!"

((I'm a big fan of movie quotes))

They don't need to make the letter example, because that would be part of LANGUAGE and, as we've previously established, that doesn't exist!

[mesmark]

As the Matrix example continues...

I'm reminded of the scene where Morpheus and Neo are in the training dojo. Morpheus gets angered by Neo's frustration and shouts,
"Common! Stop trying to hit me and hit me!"

"Common! Stop trying to teach me and teach me!"

[lolwhites]

OK, maybe my question could have been better phrased. I've no time for the se "Make these sentences positive/negative/interrogative" type exercises, but is anyone really suggesting that it's just coincidence that "It will rain tomorrow" and "Will it rain tomorrow?" have different meanings (yes, I know you can say "It will rain tomorrow?" with a rising intonation but try saying "Will it rain tomorrow." with a falling intonation and it just sounds weird)

Similar with "do+you" - most of the concordances my corpus search turned up were questions. I know that there will be times when it won't be e.g. Do you really think grammar is central to mean "I don't agree with you", which is why students have to be aware of pragmatics, but I'm not sure it's wise to bring that in during the early stages.

Mesmark gives some very good examples of what most teacher training courses present as good practise. If by the "grammar free" approach he means "not standing in front of a group of students and lecturing them about grammar" then I agree entirely. It certainly looks very like the Lexical Approach, though I'm still unclear about how students go on to produce their own spontaneous language.

Finally, I am sceptical of people who say that the students understand without translation. Just because we're not translating in class doesn't mean the students aren't translating in their heads (n.b. I'm taking about translating the idea, not word-by-word GT) - in fact, I can't see how they can do anything but translate in their heads as they won't be able to think in English until they at a pretty high level.

Oh, and can someone anwer my other question about -ed endings? Thanks.

[mesmark]

lol - as far as translation-less goes, I think it's more a matter of applying meaning in their own way. Some may translate for themselves and others may just accept what they see. Some may make mistakes in meaning but with enough examples and usage those get ironed out (I hope )

-ed vs irregular
I have and used flash cards that look like this below

That was an approach where grammar wasn't explained for grammar's sake, but it was there. Starting with -ed ending words and then mixing in irregulars. I thought that was a good way to approach it at the time. Now, I just use plain flash cards and go over words in an order I feel are of importance to them. We play games using the same vocabulary (reg-irreg.) mixed without explanation. I don't bother with -ed or irregular separation but just cover the usage of each word in the past tense as they are presented.

When I was using the explanation, the students were all kinds of confused as to what to do when and where. The spontaneous language wasn't present at all because they needed me to teach them 'how to' first. By taking away the grammar and teaching as is. They begin to accept it as is. So, they will make mistakes in their attempts to create language.

T: He's riding a unicycle. (on the card)
S: I can riding a unicycle! (spontaneously from someone the croud)
S: I rided a unicycle. (spontaneously to mean I have ridden a unicycle before.)

I see the same sort of language experimenting in my own children. Students make the same mistakes over and over again, but in time, after hearing the correct form over and over they aquire the correct form (again, I hope ) Even those that dont get the correct grammatical form down make easy transition to a grammar driven method once in the grammar JHS system here in Japan. As an aside, most of my students say they can't understand that way. They just ignore the explanation and do it.

I think with grammar based teaching (apparent or hidden) the students aren't spontaneous. They must first build in their system and then produce. That takes time and often gets stopped and silenced by the time it takes to create. Anything that is spontaneously produced is probably not grammar based and comes from use and understanding of the language, basically speaking without thinking.

I'm not here trying to convert anyone. The reason I posted this is to sort of try and get an understanding myself of what I'm doing and get some feedback about it. Also, I'm not sure i'm completely converted. However, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to use currently available textbooks and worksheets. I almost can't teach from the textbook I have anymore because I just don't believe in it. I don't think it's going to help.

I was also constantly worried about not teaching enough. I was concerned that I should be doing more grammar and worksheets, having the students work with structure and such. I really need more time to tell whether I'm doing something good here or not. However, the results so far are much better than anything I could produce with a grammar method.


- Mark

[Lorikeet]

I find this discussion very interesting, although I haven't seen the Matrix. It seems as though most of you are teaching children. Do you propose the same kind of "grammarless" instruction for adult students? As a language learner, I know I want some grammar instruction, but grammar and grammar translation are certainly not the same thing to me.

[mesmark]

Lorikeet - I'm teaching children in this way and like I said, I'm having more and more difficulty with teaching adults the grammar method. I still do it because they aren't ready or willing to give up grammar and I'm not sure if I'm ready to take on convention just yet. However, we are using the textbook less and less and I always feel a need to remind them that finishing the textbook doesn't mean they will be able to speak English. It's a false sense of progress in my mind.

I have been using this idea in my college classes this year to mixed response. It's only been a couple weeks and maybe by the end of the term I'll have some better data to report back with.

[abufletcher]

OK. Lots to work through here.

but is anyone really suggesting that it's just coincidence that "It will rain tomorrow" and "Will it rain tomorrow?" have different meanings (yes, I know you can say "It will rain tomorrow?"

First my gut instinct (which is to say my conditioned responses from a lifetime of "living with English") tell me that "Will it rain tomorrow" is hugely more frequent than its transformationally-arrived-at counterpart "It will rain tomorrow." The concept "greater frequency" could be glossed here as "existing in the shared social awareness of language-in-the-world to a greater degree." People are far more likely to say "It's going to rain tomorrow." So in this case, you are actually "back-forming" a low-freuqnecy declarative form in order to have a statement to transform into a higher frequency question form. Seems rather pointless to me.

Similar with "do+you" - most of the concordances my corpus search turned up were questions.

It's not a matter of whether they can be classified as "interrogotives" when viewed from some abstract grammar perspective. The real issue is what social ACTIONS are being performed by these do+you formulation. As I said, a quick scan of do+you vs. does+he (on the Cobuild site) suggests to me that the actions involved may not be identical. I couldn't give a hang about any apparent surface similarities.

students have to be aware of pragmatics, but I'm not sure it's wise to bring that in during the early stages.

One of the fundamental flaws of mainstream approaches to language teaching is the odd belief that "pragmatics" should come "later" after students have learned "grammar." This is just nuts. Pragmatic understanding should be an integral aspect of language learning from the very first moment of contact with the L2.

It certainly looks very like the Lexical Approach, though I'm still unclear about how students go on to produce their own spontaneous language.

You overestimate the degree of spontaneity of language-in-the-world. Estimates of "recurrent combinations" in speech are as high as 75%. We are all enormously uninventive and repetitious in our use of language. In fact, it has been said that we are all plariarists and that our only real competence lies in "reshaping" what we have previously said, heard, read, and written. A skilled language user is just a skilled plariarist. We're like quilters who as we get more advanced can produced more and more elaborate and eye-pleasing designs while still just using the same old bits of used fabric. Obviously as students move from beginner to advanced the degree of "creative cut 'n paste" of their talk will increase. But there is no reason for this to be a goal from the very beginning.

Finally, I am sceptical of people who say that the students understand without translation.

Using a language is a skill. Translating is a different skill. My children are all pretty much fluent in Japanese (I'm American and my wife is Mexican). Yet, their ability to translate from Japanese to English is appalling. Learning to "be and do" in another language is the core skill. Translating might (optinally) be added into the mix late is this is thought to be a relevant and helpful additional skill.

they won't be able to think in English until they at a pretty high level.

Children learning their L1 are "thinking in their head" long before they have a fully worked out conceptual system. Learning English and Learning to think in English go hand in hand from the very beginning.

Oh, and can someone anwer my other question about -ed endings?

I hadn't consciously thought this part out before so I side-stepped it earlier! But again, and you may be horrified to hear it, but there is also no place in my teachng for "OK, this week we're going to be working on the past tense." As Mesmark does with the passive, I deal with simple past when talking-in-the-simple-past emerges as a relevantly thing to be doing. And in a relevant context I'm only going to be working with this tense indexed and co-taught with relevant verbs. Frequency of use vs. an abstract ability to "form the past tense" would be my guiding light.

You clearly believe in a synthetic view of language as bits and pieces to first be learned in isolation and then later "used." I reject this view out of hand. Breaking down chunks or contextualize real-world-language is something that will naturally come about LATER in the language learning process. This is the difference between a crude plagiarist and a skilled writer. But EVERYONE has to go through the crude plagiarst stage first -- or risk producing eccentric nonsense (as do so many L2 student writers who've been taught using synthetic approaches).