TOPIC N°10

How to teach Structure and Function

Since ancient times of humanity, the study of language has been the interest of
different groups of researchers, linguists, psycholinguists, sociolinguists and the like.
Despite the different contributions given by the aforementioned groups, they agree on the
notion that language is a grammatical system of human communication which consists of
the structured arrangement of sound (or their written representations) into larger units
(morphemes, words, sentences, utterances, and so forth). Some of them (who are for the
structural grammar) consider that a language user just needs to possess that knowledge of a
language in order to communicate, while some others (who are for the functional grammar)
have highlighted that the grammar of any language has some communicative functions
which are more important for the language user to know to reach an effective
communication. Moreover, these different opinions have always influenced the way a
foreign language is taught, bringing certain controversy to the foreign language teaching
(FLT) practice since it is not always clear if grammar can be brought to the FL classroom at
all, the amount of grammar that can be taught, and how to present it in relation to the given
content. Precisely, this essay is intended to present some standpoints given by different
authors in the field.

To start with, grammarians from ancient Greece and Rome developed a set of
categories for classifying the words that are used in the production of language, claiming
that communication occurs if those words are correctly put together when expressing
something (Bloor & Bloor, 1997). Then, Chomsky (1957, in Bloor & Bloor, 1997) came up
with his transformational generative grammar which, although still structural, attempted to
provide a model (consisting of a system of rules) for the description of all languages that he
considered necessary to reach communication. And finally, Halliday (1970, in Brumfit &
Johnson, 1991) put his systemic grammar on the table, which is based on a series of
systems that represent a set of options in the production of language in a social context.

Nowadays, the discussion of structural and functional grammar usually stars by

referring to Chomsky who started giving important contributions in the study of language
grammar. In this sense, Chomsky (1965, in Richards, Platt & Platt, 1999) suggested that the
users of any language must posses some necessary knowledge of the structures of the
language (competence) in order to effectively understand and produce the language in
question (performance). Later on, the sociolinguist Hymes (1971) highlighted that the
explanation of language use should be framed into the pragmatic approach. This author
claimed that just knowing the formal grammatical system of a language is not enough; on
the contrary, he thought that effective communication can only take place if the participants
possess what he called ‘communicative competence’, that is, the ability an individual has to
recognize if something is easy to process (feasibility), if it is appropriate for the context in
which it is used (appropriateness), if it is actually used (occurrence), besides recognizing if
something is grammatically possible (linguistic knowledge). Then, Canale and Swain
(1980, in Brown, 2001) expanded the concept of communicative competence by suggesting
that a communicative-competent language user must have four important aspects:
knowledge of grammar and vocabulary of the language (organizational/grammatical
competence), knowledge of how to begin and end conversations, what topics may be talked
about in different speech events and the type of language used in different situations
(sociolinguistic competence), knowledge of how to use language appropriately (discourse
competence), and, knowledge of how to respond to different speech acts or communicative
functions (strategic competence). According to these authors, when a foreign language
speaker has all the aforementioned characteristics, it can be said that he/she has mastered
the target language and so may effectively communicate in it.

According to Brown (2001), all these notions were used in an attempt to justify
certain teaching methods and techniques that better fit into our language classrooms. That
is, different disciplinary schools of thought (such as psychology, linguistics, and education,
for example) have come and gone, as have language-teaching methods waxed and waned in
popularity. Regarding this, we find, on the one hand, the so called grammar translation
method and the audiolingual method to represent the structural grammar approach
(focusing on language forms, memorization of vocabulary, translations of texts from the
second to the native language, imitation, repetition drills, exercising). On the other hand,
we find those standing for the functional grammar (communicative approach and the
cooperative learning) which make emphasis on providing actual interactive experiences to
the learners. There have also been some other methods (such as suggestopedia and the
silent way) which represented some other positions regarding L1/L2 acquisition, but that
were not so widespread as the aforementioned ones and do not stem from the notions of
either the structural or the functional grammar approach. At this point, it is precise to revise
how all these methods and approaches took place.

In the past, when “formal grammar” was in use, much attention was paid to just the
grammar competence, that is, knowledge of language structures. Nowadays, Canale and
Swain’s conceptions have represented a great interest of study for pragmatics which deals
not only with language in relation to its users but also the linguistic communication in
context (Van Dijk, 2000). Pragmatics, as well as its discipline (Discourse Analysis), was
strongly influenced by Hallidayan functional grammar approach which sees the production
of language (or effective communication) as stemming from the appropriate use of social
functions and, contrasts Chomsky’s structural grammar approach. In other words, Halliday
considers that meaning and actual use of language are more important than just abstract
forms.

In this sense, according to Lock (1996), language occurrence was formerly seen as
the production of just correct or incorrect sentences. But, nowadays functional grammar
goes further than correctness: it focuses on how those language productions are appropriate
for a particular communicative purpose in a particular context (Idem, 1996). So, the
Hallidayan grammar takes into consideration the union of phonology (the sound system),
lexis (the vocabulary of a language), syntax (arrangement of words), morphology (the
structure of words) and semantics (meaning). Furthermore, according to this author, when
referring to the functional approach (which emphasizes on meaning) it is precise to notice
the existence of three types of meaning which are present whenever we express meaning:
experiential meaning (which represents our perception of the world), interpersonal meaning
(representing our participation in communicative events), and textual meaning (the way we
organize our ideas in language production).

At this point, it is important for our students to be taught that all utterances perform
functions of some kind, which are called a speech acts. Regarding this, Austin (1962 in
Davies & Fraenkle, 2003) pointed out that there are certain ritualistic expressions that do
not simply talk about something, but actually perform the thing. He suggested the existence
of three types of (direct) speech acts when producing any utterance: the locutionary act (the
act of uttering some words or producing meaning), illocutionary act (the act performed in
uttering words or intention) and perlocutionary act (the act of producing an effect by
uttering the words). Afterwards, Searle expanded this notion including those occasions (of
irony, metaphor, joking, and so on) when a speech act is performed indirectly (and so it is
called ‘indirect speech act’) and participants need to make use of certain elements (such as
context, shared background knowledge, etc.) to understand the intended meaning in the
utterances (Downes, W., 1998). So, our students must be taught the distinct ways in which
different communicative functions can be presented in actual language production, and that
they need the aforementioned elements to comprehend what is uttered.

As it can be seen, it is not enough to teach our students how sentences are structured
but also, it is important to let them know the different possibilities they may have to express
the same communicative function by the production of different sentences, or even by the
use of different tones of voice, body language and other linguistic strategies. Furthermore,
it has to be taken into account the fact that functional grammar considers either oral or
written language as part of the discourse production since it includes the formal rules (as
structural grammar) and also the informal occurrence of language as part of the authenticity
of language production.

Taking all these contributions into account to the understanding of the necessary
elements for a learner to succeed in the learning of a foreign language, there existed
teachers wondering about the existence of any recognized approach that embraced the
aforementioned aspects, and it appeared. According to Brown (2001) the communicative
language teaching (CLT) approach originates from the need to include actual language use
in authentic context and interactive techniques which help the students acquire language
functions in a more natural way. But, by the use of the communicative approach, language
teachers stopped teaching aspects of pronunciation and grammar, paying more attention to
the abilities students should develop to communicate. As a result, it started to be evident
that incorrect linguistic features became a permanent part of the way students spoke or
wrote (fossilization). So, different authors (such as Bloor & Bloor, 1997; and, Brown, 2001)
suggest that grammatical/phonological errors should be corrected to avoid them to fossilize.
Of course, this should be done in a very careful way since there are some other factors
(such as the affective factor) that can influence the students learning process of a foreign
language.

I consider, on the one hand, that the misinterpretation of the functional grammar
approach (discussed above) has taken place because of the fact that it highlights language
functions as the more important aspect to be taught. But, we should not forget that structure
and function must be learnt at the same time in order to guarantee an effective
communication. Furthermore, I consider that the key aspect for teaching structure and
function at the same time is on the way they are presented. In fact, Brown (2001) mentions
that grammar could be presented either by practicing various language forms to let the
learners discover or induce rules and generalizations (inductive approach) or by giving the
students a rule/generalization and then allowing them to practice various instances of
language to which the rule applies (deductive approach). Regarding this, it is said that, in
most contexts, an inductive approach is more appropriate because it is more in keeping with
natural language acquisition, builds more intrinsic motivation, among other things. In this
sense, I also think that the inductive approach could be the best way of presenting grammar.
However, I know that we (teachers) must also be aware of the characteristics of the group
we are teaching (their interests, learning styles, etc.).

On the other hand, I also think that EFL learners should be given certain grammatical
explanations and technical terminology. Of course, this will also depend on the
characteristics of the general class. That is, if they are beginning-level learners,
grammatical explanations and technical terminology should be carefully provided, by
presenting them as clear and as unambiguous as possible (using charts, graphics and the
like). But, if they are intermediate-level or advanced-level learners, these aspects could be
discussed in a more opened way.

Finally, I consider that grammar structures and functions should be also presented by
practicing different communicative functions by contextualizing them with the se of realia
and having the students interact with us and their peers through grouped activities and
representations of authentic events.
 To sum up, we (teachers) should give much importance either to the structures or to
the functions of language in order to help our students achieve actual communicative
competence. For doing that, we must carefully decide on the strategies that would better fit
into our classroom, taking into consideration the characteristics of the whole class and the
fact that our main goal is to provide our students with the experiences that are more likely
to get them participate, interact and practice what they learn in.

References (09 authors)

Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (1997). The functional analysis of English. A Hallidayan approach.
London: Arnold.
Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
(second ed.). White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
Brumfit, C.J., & Johnson, K. (1991). The communicative approach to language teaching.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Downes, W. (1998). Language and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Escandell, M.V. (1996). Introducción a la pragmática. Barcelona, España: Editorial Ariel,
S.A.
Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar. An introduction for second language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1999). Dioctionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. England: Longman.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory,
Acquisition of languages: Models and methods . Ed. Huxley and E.
Ingram. New York: Academic Press. 3-23.
[Documento en línea] Disponible:
http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?
pid=S0071_132001003600010&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es#hymes71/ [Consulta:
18-11-2004]
Van Dijk, T.A. (2000). El discurso como interacción social. Barcelona, España: Gedisa.

https://books.google.co.ve/books?
hl=es&lr=&id=lH8Ak_8YiLkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA247&dq=application+of+functional+grammar&ots=sK
wyblQRPh&sig=BauO8FxzV-W6nx0rMggocXQ0aGQ#v=onepage&q=application%20of
%20functional%20grammar&f=false