Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educactivos, para la crtica y la investigacin respetando la reglamentacin en materia de derechos de autor.

Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.

:adin~ No. 1 Larsen-Freeman (1991: 279:283), T e a c h i n ~ : Grammar i Celce-Murcia M. (1991), n glkh as a Second or Foreien Laneuape, (Second Edition), Boston MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Temhing

Teaching Grammar
Diane Larsen-Freeman

Over the centuries, second language educatorj have alternatpd between favoring ieaching approaches which focus on having students analyze language in order to learn it and those which encourage students' using language in order to acquire it. Earlier this century, this distinctive pattern was observable in the shift from the analytic grarnrnartranslation approach to the use-oriented direct rnethod (Celce-Murcia, 1979). Although ihe character of the field is sornewhat more heterogeneous today, a recent exarnple oi the shift, this time in the opposite direction, is the loss o popularity oi the Chornsky-inspired Cognitivecode approach, in which analyzing structures and applying rules were cornmon Practices, and the rise in popularity ot more communicative approaches which ernpha~ize language use over rules o i language usage widdowson, 1978). In iact, no iewer 'han three language teaching methods or apProaches, Cornrnunity Language Learning, SuF2estopedi:. and the Cornrnunicative 4pProach, devote a signiiicant arnount o i ClassrOOrn time to prornoting cornrnunication

among students (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). Moreover, one current approach, the Natural Approach, explicitly.eschews any class time for gramrnatical analysis. relegating any which does occur to hornework exercises. Proponents of this approach believe that the only sufficient and necessary conditiocs for successful second language learning are that learners receive comprehensible input sornewhat beyond their current stage of developrnent and that the learners' atiective state rnake them receptive to the input (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). Despite the popularity such approaches now enjoy, if the pattern alluded to earlier is perpeiuaied, then onewould expect thern to bechallenged. Indeed, there arealready signs that this is happening. As Eskey (1983) points out with exasperation: "We used to believe that if students learned the iorrn, cornrnunication would sornehow take care oi itself. Now we seern to believe that if students sornehow learn to cornrnunicate, rnastery o i the torrns will take care o itself" (p. 319). The problern. as Eskey suggests, is that iorrn does not take care of itself. a t least not for many learners and not in the rnost eifica-

Larsen-Freeman. D. (1991). Teaching Grammar. En Celce-Mauricia, M. (comp.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreing Language (pp.279-283). EU: Heine & Heinle.

Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educactivos, para la crtica y la investigacin respetando la reglamentacin en materia de derechos de autor. Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.

cious rnanner possible. Indeed, researcher Pienernann (1984) concludes that "giving up the instruction of syntax is to allow for the fossilization of interlanguage in sirnplified forrn" (1984, p. 209). Thus, while cornprehensible input may be necessary and sufficient for untutored second language acquisition, it does not necessarily follow that instruction should be limited to what i s necessary and sufficient. Surely the rnotivation for language instruction is not sirnply to supply what is rninimally necessav for learning to take place, but rather to create the optirnal conditions for effective and efficient LZpedagogy (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1990). Although some educators are irankly relieved that grarnrnar, which has seceived short shrift for a decade or so, isnce again receivmg its due, an unfortunate consequence of this shift will result if the pendulurn is allowed to swing beyond its point of equilibriurn. Must it be the fate of the field to vacillate forever, or is there a way in which a synergy may be reaiized between language analysis and language use? It would be too arnbitious to think that this chapter rnight achieve such a reconciliation, but perhaps we can take a rnodest step in the direction of rnaintaining balance. To do so, it seerns we rnust come to a broader understanding of what it rneans to teach grarnrnar than has usually been entertained. Whereas opponents of a language-analytic approach have usually equated the teaching of grarnrnar with the teaching of explicit linguistic rules, we subrnit that whether or not the students are provided with explicit rules is really irrelevant to what it rneans to teach gramrnar. Neither should the teaching of grarnrnar require a focus on forrn orstructurealone. Nonetheless, a concession by those who would zealously abandon language analysis must also be rnade: cornrnunicative competence should be seen to subsurne linguistic cornpetence, not tareplace it. We clairn that linguistic accuracy is as rnuch a part of cornrnunicative cornpetence as being able to get one's.meaning across or to cornmunicate in a sociolinguistically appropriate rnanner. Thus, a

more satisfactory characterization of teaching grarnrnar, harrnonious with the above assurnptions, is that teaching grarnrnar rneans enabling language students to use linguistic forrns accurately, rneaningfully and appropriately.'

I
i
j

A THREE-DIMENSIONAL GRAMMAR FRAMEWORK

In order to &de us in constructing an approach to teaching grarnmar which strives i to rneet the above definition, it would be ; helpful to have a frarne of reference. Our framework takes the form of a pie chart. lts shape helps us to make salient the fact that in dealing with the complexity of grarnrnar there are three dimensions of language that must be I deait with: the forrn or structures thernselves, i their sernantics or rneaning, and the prag- : rnatic conditions governing their use.' More- i over, as they are wedges of a single pie, we note that a further assurnption is that the di- i rnensions are not hierarchically arranged as rnany traditional characterizations of linguis- ! tic strata d e p i ~ tFinally, the arrows connect- : .~ ing one wedge of the pie with another illustrate the interconnectedness of the three dirnensions, thus'a change inany one wedge will have repercussions for the other two.

STRUCTURE
Morphemes Phonemiclgraphemic panems Symactic paiierns

MEANINO SEMANTICS
Lexical meaning Grarnmatical meaning

PRAGMATICS
Social comext tinguistic discourse context Presuppositionsabout context

II Language Skills

Larsen-Freeman. D. (1991). Teaching Grammar. En Celce-Mauricia, M. (comp.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreing Language (pp.279-283). EU: Heine & Heinle.

Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educactivos, para la crtica y la investigacin respetando la reglamentacin en materia de derechos de autor. Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.

ln the wedge 0f oUr pie having to do with

~ c t u r ewe have those overt forms that teil , US how a particular grammar structure is conStNaerj. In the semantic wedge we deal with ,&at a grammar structure rneans. Note that bemeaning can be lexical (a dictionary defi,i n t o for a preposition like down for inStance) it can be grammatical (e.g., the or mnditionai states both a condition and outcomeor result). It is very difficult to arrive at a definitiOn of pragmatics distinct from semanlics, and thus we are sympathetic to Levinsuggestion that pragmatics deals with aspects of meaning not dealt with by sernantic theory! Since this definition i s too circular and too broad for our purposes here, howwer, we will limit pragmatics to mean slthe study of those relations between language and context that are gramrnaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a language" (Lwinson 1983, p. 9). We will leave the term "context" broad enough though, so that context can be social (.e., a context created by interlocutors, their relationship to one another, the setting), or it can be a linguistic discourse context (.e., the language that precedes or follows a particular structure in the discourse or how a particular genre or register of discourse affects the use of a structure). or context can even mean the preSuppositions one has about the context. The influence of pragmatics may be ascertained by asking two questions:

course factors would result in a syntagmatic choice such as the indirect object being placed to createlenny gave Hanka brandnew cornb versus lenny gave a brand-new cornb to Hank? Despite the permeable boundaries between the dirnensions, we have found it useful to view gramrnar from these three perspectives. We trust that the utility of this approach will become cleareras we proceed. A teacher of grarnmar rnight begin by asking the questions posed in the three wedges of our pie for any given grammar point.

'

l . When or why does a speakerlwriter

choose a particular grammar structure overanother! For example, what factors in the social context might explain a paradigmatic choice such as why a speaker chooses a yes-no question rather than an imperative to serve as a request for information (e.g., DO you have the time? vs. Please tell me the time). Or what presupposition about the context would a speaker hold who used a negative yes-no cluestion, rather than an aifirmative one? 2. When or why does a speakerlwriter vary the forrn oi a particular linguistic structure? For instance, what linguistic dis-

Let us take an exarnple. A cornmon structure to be taught at a high beginning level of English proficiency is the 's possessive forrn. If we analyze thispossessive forrn as answers to our questions, we would fill in the wedges as shown at t'he top of p. 282 (analysis based on Celce-Murcia & ~Gsen-~reeman, 1983). Forrn o i Possessive. This way o iorming possessives in English requires inilecting regular singular nouns and irregular plural nouns not ending in s with 'sor by adding an apostrophe aiter the s ending of regular plural nouns and singular nouns ending in the sound s. This form o the possessive has three allomorphs: lzi, /S/,and lar1 which are phonetically conditioned: I z i i s used when it oc-

hmen-~reernan:Teaching Grarnmar

22

281

Larsen-Freeman. D. (1991). Teaching Grammar. En Celce-Mauricia, M. (comp.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreing Language (pp.279-283). EU: Heine & Heinle.

Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crtica y la investigacin respetando la reglamentacin en materia de derechos de autor. Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.

POSSESSIVES

FORM
S

or '

l Z I = I S l = l a ZI

possession description ' amount relaiiinship Dariiwhole

'S

versus possessive determiner

'S versus

noun cornpounds

curs after voiced consonants and vowels, /S/ following voiceless consonants, and / a z / after sibilants. Meaning of Possessive. Although al1 languages have a way of signaling possession, they do not al1 regard the same items a s possessable. For example, Spanish speakers refer to a body part using the definite article, instead of a possessiveform. ESLIEFL students will have to learn the semantic scope of the possessive form in English. Besides possession, the possessive form can indicate description (a debtor's prison), amount (a month's holiday), relationship Uack's wife), partlwhole (my brother's hand), and originlagent (Shakespeare's tragedies). Pragmatics of Possessive. Possession in English can be expressed in other ways-for example, with a possessive determiner or with theoftheform (e.g., he legs oithe table). Possessive determiners (e.g., his, her, and their) are presumably used when the referent of the possessor is clear from the context. As for the o i the form, while ESLIEFL books will often oiier the rule that says that the oi the possessive is used with nonhuman head nouns and 's with human head nouns, we are aware of certain pragmatic conditions where this rule does not apply. For example, native

speakers often prefer to use the 'S even with inanimate head nouns if the head nouns are performing some action (e.g., the train's arrival was dela~ed).~ Finally, students will have to learn to distinguish contexts in which a noun compound (table 1eg)is more appropriate than either the 'S form or the o{ the form. Thus, by using our ternary scheme, we can classify the facts that affect the form, meaning, and use of the possessive structure. The articulation and classification of the facts is, of course, only a first step. Teachers would not necessarily present al1 these facts to students, and they certainly would not do so ata single time.' Beforecontinuing, however, it might be worthwhile to apply our approach to another grammar structure. Let us analyze phrasal verbs this time. By considering the three questions posed earlier, we can state the following about phrasal verbs (analysis based upon Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1983):
PHRASAL VERBS

Verb + Panicle + Transitive/lntransitive

InformalDiscourse

Form of Phrasal Verbs: Phrasal verbs are two-part verbs comprising a verb and a particle (e.g., to look up). Sometimes, they can be constructed with three parts, in that a preposition can follow the particle (e.g.. t0 keep up with). As with al1 otherverbs, phrasal verbs are transitive or intransitive. A distinc-, tive feature ot phrasal verbs is that in many 0 '

II Language s~III~

Larsen-Freeman. D. (1991). Teaching Grammar. En Celce-Murcia, M. (comp.), Teaching English as a Secod or Forein Language (pp. 279-283). EU: Heine & Heinle.

Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educactivos, para la crtica y la investigacin respetando la reglamentacin en materia de derechos de autor. Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.

them the particle can be separated irom i t j verb by an interienins object (e..,., Alicia looked ;he word up in :he icticnaryi. Phrasal ,,erbs also have distincrive stress and juncture panerns, which distineuishes them irom verb preposition combinations: ~licia ioked @+[he wor0. ~licia wlked+p the stresc. :L!eaning o i Phrasai 'ierbs. There are lit~ eral phrasal verbs. S U C 2s :o hacig up. where if one knows the meaning o i the ver! or :he pinicie or both. it is no[ diiicult to figure out :he meaning o i the vefa-particle cornbina[ion. Uniortunately, ior the ESL!LFL nudent there are far more instantes of figurative phrasal verbs (e.g.. to run into, meaning "meet by chance") where a knowiedge of the rneaning of the verb and o i the particle is of little help in discerning the meaning o the phrasal verb. ibioreover. as with single-word verbs, phrasal verbs can have more than one rneaning (e.g., to come acrosj, meaning "to discover bv chance" or "to make an irnpresjion"), the latter meaning occurring when the phrasal verb is used intransitivelv. Pragmaticj o i Phrasal Vers. When is a phrasal verb preierred to a sing!e-word veto? For the rnost part, phrasal veros seem to be more common i n informal spoken aiscourse as opposed to more formai written discourse. When i s one orm o i a pnrasal verb preerrea to another; .e., when snouid the partic!e be separatea irom its verb? Erteschik-Snir's 1979) principie ot dominante seems to work weil :o define the circumstances iavoring partic!e movement: if an S? object i s dorninant (.e., a long, elaborate N P representing new intormation), it is likely io occur aiter the particle; i the direct obiecr is snort, old iniormation (e.~., a pronouni, it would naturzily occur beiore the particie. laentiiving the C.b1lenge. Again, we would like to underscore the iacrrhat it would not be reasonabie ior ihe E5i:EFL teacber :o present ail o chis iniorrnation :o stucents at . , . . once. The iramewors ooes. 5owe~~er. :o ne!p
hnen-Reeman: Teaching Grammar

organize the iactj. Furthermore, by organizing the iacts i n this rnanner, teachers can more easiiy identiy where the challenge!~) will lie for their students. Identiiying the challenging dimension or dirnensions is a key step which shouid be taken prior to lesson preparation. Teachers should, thereiore, as^ themselves ior each structure they teach which o i rhe three dirnensions o i language is likely i o oCer the greatest challenge ior their stoents. All three dimensions will hve to oe masiered by ihe iearner (although not necessariiy consciousivi. For phrasal vetos, however, it has been ourexperience :ha it is ihe meaning airnension which ESL:EFL students s:ruggle with most. It is oten the act that there is no systematic way of associating the verb and the particle. To make matters worse, new phrasal verbs are constantly being coined, adding to the students' woes. By recognizing where students w i l l likely struggle, an important clue is given the teacher as to where to iocus work on phrasal vetos. We will amplify on this point below. For now, however, it is wonh noting that althoug'n i t is Qrarnrnar structures with which we are dealing, it is not always the iorm o i ihe structures which creates the most significan: learning challenge ior nudents (Larsen-Freernan & CeiceMurcia, 1985).

Larsen-Freeman. D. (1991). Teaching Grammar. En Celce-Mauricia, M. (comp.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreing Language (pp.279-283). EU: Heine & Heinle.