Loading…
Reload document 
Open in new tab THE CASE FOR GRAMMAR
The sentence-machine argument
Only “item-learning” is not enough. There comes a time when we need to learn some patterns or rules to enable us to
generate new sentences. That is to say, grammar. Grammar is a kind of sentence-making machine. The teaching of
grammar offers learners the means for potentially limitless linguistic creativity.
The fine-tuning argument
Written language needs to be more explicit than spoken language in order to avoid ambiguity. Therefore, the teaching
of grammar serves as a corrective against ambiguity.
The fossilization argument
Even if you are a highly-motivated learner to pick up certain elements of language, you reach a “language plateu”
beyond which it is very difficult to progress. In other words, their linguistic competence fossilizes. Research suggests
that learners who receive no instruction seem to be at risk of fossilizing sooner than those who do receive instruction.
The advance organizer argument
Grammar instruction might have a delayed effect. During conversation with native speakers, certain features of talk
might be noticed. Noticing is a prerequisite for acquisition.
The discrete item hypothesis
Tidying language up and organizing it into neat categories (sometimes called discrete items) makes language
digestible.
The rule-of-law argument
Since grammar is a system of learnable rules, it lends itself to a view of teaching and learning known as transmission. A
trnasmission view sees the role of education as the transfer of body knowledge (in the form of facts and rules) from
those having the knowledge to those who do not.
THE CASE AGAINST GRAMMAR
The knowledge how argument
Translating rules into language skills might be a problem in most cases. Therefore, you learn languages by doing, not
by studying them. (experiential learning)
The communication argument
Grammatical knowledge (linguistic competence) is merely one component of what is called communicative
competence. (CLT)
Achieving the objectives of CLT requires putting language to communicative use.
The acquisition argument
The distinction between learning and acquisition. Krashen states that learning results from formal instruction and is of
limited use for real communication. Acquisition is a natural process. Success in a 2nd language is due to acquisition,
not learning. Learnt knowledge can never become acquired knowledge.
The natural order argument
Krashen’s acquisition/learning hypothesis drew heavily on studies suggesting that there is a natural order of acquisition of
grammatical items. It derives partly from the work of Noam Chomsky. UG helps explain similarities in the development order
in 1st lg acq as well as in 2nd lg acq.
The lexical chunks argument
Language learning involves an element of item-learning like vocabulary, idiom, whole phrase and social formulae learning.
However, learning them in the form of chunks plays an important role in language development. (lexical approach)
0
0
Average Rating