Options in grammar teaching

Part 1: Input-oriented grammar work

SLA perspectives

Broadly speaking, the acquisition-related rationale behind the activities you’ve just
seen is that the underlying grammatical system of a second language is driven
forward and internalised through exposure to L2 input. In other words, people can
learn by listening and reading. One might wonder, then, to what extent Krashen’s
claim that comprehensible input is both an efficient and sufficient condition for
language acquisition (Krashen 1981) holds up. Personally, I don’t think it does
(particularly with adults and late teens) and that is so for two basic reasons. First,
there is ample research evidence that comprehensible output (Swain 1985) has a
major part to play in the acquisition process. In other words, we also learn to speak
by speaking. Second, input is by no means a monolithic construct. It is the latter
argument that I intend to develop now.

I believe today the profession is in almost universal agreement that exposure to

input may be more or less helpful (=conducive to acquisition) depending on
whether students are asked to simply comprehend it (understand what was said)
or to process it linguistically (notice how certain ideas were expressed), which was
the arguably the case in activities 8 to 12. The basic postulates of the latter
approach could be summarised as follows:

a. Left to their own devices, most learners are believed to process input for
meaning before they process it for form (Skehan 1998). Recent research
suggests that when decoding messages, listeners achieve effectiveness in fast
language processing by drawing heavily on schematic knowledge (remember
the listening session?), largely bypassing the underlying grammatical system. In
other words, a good comprehender may be an effective strategy user rather
than someone who extracts syntactic inferences from the input being
processed. Luiz Otavio Barros. A good task achiever but poor language
detective, as it were.
b. So, if top-down processing (for all its usefulness in comprehension) may leave
learners’ interlanguages (=their developing systems) unscathed, it seems
important that they should consciously attend to the linguistic features of the
©Luiz Otavio Barros. All rights reserved. Email me at luizotaviobarros@gmail.com
 input, without which it is less likely to become intake. For example, when
students hear the fitness text for the first time, they’ll naturally process it for
meaning (i.e., pay attention to what was said). Then, having to listen and write
it down may prompt some students to attend to form as well. And finally, by
comparing their versions to the original it’s likely that students will notice a
linguistic gap between what they wrote and the original text.
c. Intake, then, from a processing-based perspective, is the part of the input that
learners notice (Schmidt, 1990). In short, no noticing (and re-noticing), no
acquisition (Ellis 1997).

There are, however, relatively few studies providing empirical support for the role of
noticing in language learning. The most comprehensive account was provided by
the well-known Schmidt and Frota study. Luiz Otavio Barros. The researcher Richard
Smith kept a diary of his experience learning Portuguese in Brazil. Initially, he had
enrolled in a language school where there was a heavy emphasis on grammar
instruction. When he subsequently left these classes to travel in Brazil (which he did
for nearly six months), his Portuguese improved considerably. Initially, he attributed
his progress to the fact that he was making use of the language. However, as he
interacted with Brazilians, he was aware that certain features of the talk seemed to
stand out more than others. In other words, he noticed (and re-noticed and re-
noticed) certain grammatical items. Interestingly, these items were also items he
had studied in his classes. Schmidt concluded that the grammar instruction he had
received previously, while insufficient in itself to turn him into a reasonably
competent Portuguese speaker, had primed him to notice what might otherwise
have gone unnoticed, and hence had indirectly influenced his learning. It had
acted as a kind of advance organiser (Thornbury 1999) for his later acquisition of
the language.

Ellis, R. (1997) SLA research and Language Teaching, Oxford. OUP.

Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Pergamon.
Schmidt, R.W. (1990) “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning”. Applied Linguistics, 11(2),
129-155.
Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford. OUP.
Swain, M. (1985) “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Output in its
Development”, in Gass,S. and Madden,C. (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition , Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Thornbury, S. (1999) How to Teach Grammar. London, Longman.

©Luiz Otavio Barros. All rights reserved. Email me at luizotaviobarros@gmail.com

Part 2:
Output-oriented grammar work
SLA perspectives

For present purposes, I would like to propose three different categories for
production-oriented grammar work: meaning-focused, form-focused, and form-
defocused. Let me discuss each one in turn.

1. Meaning-focused grammar work is, perhaps paradoxically, not grammar work

at all. It is classroom activity premised on the assumption that an exclusive focus on
message-conveyance (getting meaning across through free speaking) will allow
second language acquisition processes to be capitalised upon naturalistically and
therefore entail a gradual improvement in accuracy. Recent research seems to
suggest that an exclusive focus on meaning (what is said), is often associated with
a most undesired side effect: unbalanced language development and
fossilisation. Skehan (1998) claims that when trying to communicate meaning in
real time, learners often operate on a “least effort” principle, saying only as much
as is necessary to communicate.

2. Form-focused grammar work is production practice. Practice can, of course,

mean a lot of things, but here I am using it in the “drill-like” sense of the word. This
entails classroom activity in which (1) there is some attempt to isolate a specific
grammar feature; (2) learners are required to manipulate or produce sentences
containing that feature with a high level of accuracy; (3) feedback on
performance is usually linguistic. The first three activities we did (see
accompanying handout) are form-focused through and through.

Perhaps because of the inevitable association with the now largely discredited
audio-lingual model, it is hardly surprising that the engagement of learners in
practice has been “on the decrease in many classrooms” (Pica, 1994), many
Cultura classrooms for that matter. The criticism leveled against form-focused
practice is usually summarised as follows:

©Luiz Otavio Barros. All rights reserved. Email me at luizotaviobarros@gmail.com

a. In contrast with the current “language-as-organism” orthodoxy in ELT, form-
focused practice is claimed to operate on the premise that learners acquire
one target language item at a time, in a linear, step-by-step fashion.
b. With a view to the display of mastery, therefore, form-focused practice often
sets a premium on the immediate production of native-like constructions.
c. Learners’ apparent mastery of the item they are practising may be, however,
merely evidence of temporary pseudo-accuracy. As early as in 1967, the
linguist Pit Corder claimed that learners have their own pre-programmed, built-
in syllabuses, governing most of what gets learned. It is often argued, therefore,
that learners will not acquire those items they are not psycholinguistically ready
to acquire, no matter how much they practise.

But things are not so simple:

a. First, it is probably not a leap of logic to claim that drilling can be potentially
useful in the long run because of its input contributions rather than its production
value. In other words, practice may work because it helps students notice and re-
notice and re-notice certain language forms. Luiz Otávio Barros.

b. Drilling certainly has its place in the teaching of formulaic chunks of language
that are assembled and learned as wholes, e.g.: What’s the matter? Do you know
what I mean? How long does it take to get there? Could you do me a favour? If I
were you, I’d think twice etc.

3. Form-defocused practice. In many ways I think what we have here is something

of a pedagogical conundrum, as succinctly portrayed by Batstone (1994:229):
“Excessive manipulation of learner language on the one hand and an effective
abdication of any principled control on the other”. Batstone’s use of “principled”
denotes an inclination towards a mid-ground position, advocating a degree of
balance between two extremes. In other words, a satisfactory compromise might
be to vary the degree of linguistic control depending on how strongly we may wish
to direct learners to certain language forms, like in activities 5 to 7. This is what
Johnson calls form-defocus (1996).

Form-defocused grammar work operates on the premise that practice may lead
to future use as long as it bears some degree of resemblance to terminal

©Luiz Otavio Barros. All rights reserved. Email me at luizotaviobarros@gmail.com

behaviour in terms of processing and operating conditions. So, if terminal
behaviour is, say, swimming , for practice to be effective it should meet a set of
minimum conditions and be carried out under water, with co-ordinated arm and
leg strokes and so on. In the case of language learning, since the desired terminal
behaviour is communication, a minimum condition is that practice should attempt
to “focus on form while learners are concerned with message-conveyance” (Ellis
1997:82). Luiz Otavio Barros. In other words, if structures are to carry over into
natural language use contexts, it is important to engage learners in unscripted
practice activities intended to give rise to the communicative use of those
structures and make them natural or useful. This slackening of linguistic control
seems to provide the teacher with evidence of the learners’ true ability to perform
their competence, i.e., use what they know under more realistic operating
conditions.

Batstone, R. (1994) Grammar, Oxford, OUP.

Ellis, R. (1997) SLA research and Language Teaching, Oxford. OUP.
Johnson, K (1996) Language Teaching and Skill Learning, Oxford, Blackwell.
Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford. OUP.

©Luiz Otavio Barros. All rights reserved. Email me at luizotaviobarros@gmail.com