UFSCar Universidade Federal de So Carlos

PPGL Programa de Ps Graduao em Lingstica

Disciplina: Teorias Gramaticais e Gramticas Pedaggicas
Docente: Profa. Dra. Eliane Hrcules Augusto Navarro
Discente: Gabriela Imbernom Pereira

It is known by everyone that teachers usually avoid the teaching of grammar,

specially those who follow the premises of communicative teaching of language. In the
70s, with the advent of communicative teaching, grammar turned out to be the great
villain of foreign/second language learning. It was, and still is, believed that the
teaching of grammar would not lead to communication. To some extent teaching
grammar implies teaching a series of strict rules and regulations, which demands highly
skilful techniques. For these teachers, rules and regulations are not believed to promote
fluency.
It is possible to be inferred then, there was a misinterpretation of communicative
premise when it comes to the teaching of grammar. What can be seen today is that
teachers appreciate communication despite accuracy. A lot of attention and time during
classes is devoted to the so-called communicative activities that focus on fluency, and
when seen as important, accuracy is left with some few hours throughout the syllabus.
We see this little attention given to accuracy as something problematic to
students learning process. To those who learn a second or foreign language and are
taught to praise fluency only, lack of accuracy in communication can lead to social
discrimination.
In this context, today, in the field of applied linguistics, it is possible to read
about grammar teaching in a way which raises its status to something important in
contemporary studies. According to this new view, grammar is considered a dynamic
process and there is no more discussion whether grammar should be taught or not, but
how this teaching should be carried out. Two names can be mentioned to illustrate these
studies on grammar teaching: Robert Batstone and Diane Larsen-Freeman.
Batstone proposes teaching grammar as skill. In order to do so, he divides
grammar into product and process. What he calls grammar as product are the
component parts or rules that make up the language. The way in which grammar is
deployed in communication. Real time communication requires formulation and
interpretation of rules, not just the knowledge about them.

Larsen-Freemans proposal of the three dimensions, i. e. form, meaning

(Semantics) and use (Pragmatics) has evoked in teachers a new view of grammar the
one that elevates grammar to the status of attractive and meaningful. Her model
proposes that it is impossible to deal with grammar, the form of language, without
considering its ties to meaning and use. She avoids hierarchy by dividing the pie chart
that represents language equally among these three dimensions. We can infer from her
proposal that it is not what you teach, but the way you do it.
It is believed that the three dimensions are acquired differently, therefore teachers
should work their way on dedicating different attention to each of them. Usually what is
seen is teachers teaching form prior to the other two dimensions.
Larsen-Freeman claims that not all information about language should be taught but she
says that teachers should be selective when choosing what to teach about language not
to leave apart a whole dimension. It is assumed that the task of teaching grammar is a
challenging one once teachers have to be able to identify which of the three dimensions
takes them longer to be acquired depending on the linguistic target it is being taught.