Grammar_for_Teachers_Grammar_for_Student

Prévia do material em texto

Grammar for Teachers, Grammar for Students 
by Cristina Banfi and Silvia Iummato 
Paper presented at “1st Convention of the Teaching of English in Higher Education”– Univ. Nac. De 
Mar del Plata, 24-25-26 June, 1999 
 
 
Abstract 
This paper will compare and contrast the grammar taught within the context of Higher Education institutions, and that 
taught in the language classroom. The authors propose that the two are fundamentally different in that they have 
different aims and, consequently, different methodologies and different subject-areas to cover. 
The Grammar dealt with in the classroom is a simplification of our current understanding of the grammatical system for 
the sake of pedagogical clarity. It follows a rule of thumb that is intrinsically related to use. It provides descriptions in 
the form of rules that students are subsequently expected to apply in their use of the language. It requires a context and 
is used specifically to instruct non-native speakers of a particular language. 
The Grammar that Higher Education is concerned with has a different object of study and different aims. It is the 
scientific study of the language, therefore descriptions are not sufficient, the aim is explanation, and the methodology to 
be used is scientific enquiry. This approach leads to the analysis of problematic cases and the search for underlying 
explanatory rules rather than simplistic descriptions and a long list of examples. In terms of who it is aimed at, this kind 
of Grammar can be taught to native, near-native and non-native students alike. 
 
Background 
This project had its origins in 1998 when the authors conducted a survey of syllabi of Grammar and 
Linguistics courses of English Teacher Training programmes of the City of Buenos Aires. The aim 
of this survey, which comprised an analysis of contents, objectives, bibliography and 
methodological assertions, was to establish the degrees of vertical and horizontal articulation and 
whether there was overlapping of content areas and objectives. Our hypothesis was that the above-
mentioned subject-areas were not clearly defined and that considerable overlapping is the norm. As 
a result of the survey we were able to obtain considerable evidence to this effect. Some of the 
observations we made included:1
♦ There was no clear demarcation of the subject areas of courses such as Grammar I, Grammar II, 
in particular, and, to a certain extent, Linguistics, which implies a lack of vertical articulation. 
♦ There is no clear discussion, and possibly understanding, of the close connection between the 
notions of grammar and linguistics. Statements as to this relation are rare indeed. 
♦ The syllabi are extremely comprehensive, i.e. the courses appear to cover an extremely wide 
range of topic areas, such as syntactic, semantic and pragmatic notions. Such an approach seems 
to put the emphasis on breadth rather than depth. 
♦ The central aim in many syllabi appears to be the teaching of language, through some form of 
Pedagogical grammar. A secondary aim seems to be teaching the students about the 
grammatical system so that they will in turn be able to their Foreign Language students. 
♦ The progression of courses from Grammar I to Linguistics appears to, in a certain way, follow 
the chronological development of the study of language, starting out with what can be termed 
Traditional Grammar in Grammar I , and progressing to Generative Linguistics in Linguistics 
This further reinforces the confusion of students as to what Grammar and Linguistics really are. 
On explicit questioning, many lecturers claim that stating out with Generative Linguistics in 
Grammar I courses would be “too difficult for the students,” although such statements are not 
backed up by evidence, other than of an anecdotal nature. 
♦ There is a clear absence of data analysis in courses such as Grammar I, beyond the most 
traditional instances of classical parsing. In particular, there is little interest or attempt to deal 
with data from languages other than English, particularly from Spanish, the students’ mother 
tongue, or different varieties of English or Language Acquisition data. 
 
 
1 For further details, see Banfi & Iummato (1998). 
 1/5
 
 
Taking into account the background to this proposal into account, we propose to undertake a 
comparative survey of some materials that are typically (and not so typically) used in the teaching 
of Grammar at Teacher Training College. 
In an initial stage of this survey, we compare and contrasts texts that are used in the EFL classroom 
with others that are more commonly used in Grammar courses at Teacher Training Colleges. For 
the purpose of limiting the survey to a manageable task, we selected those sections/units of the 
relevant books that are devoted to a particular grammatical point, in this case, the Passive Voice. 
The texts selected were:2
A) Murphy, R. (1985) English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: CUP. (Page 84) (EFL classroom text) 
B) Abbs, B. and I. Freebairn (1989) Blueprint Intermediate. Harlow, Essex: Longman. (Page 80) 
(EFL classroom text) 
C) Gramley, S. and K.-M. Pätzol (1992) A Survey of Modern English. London: Routeldge. (Section 
4.4.4) (Teacher Training College text) 
D) Quirk, R. and S. Greenbaum (1973) A University Grammar of English. Harlow, Essex: 
Longman. (Section 7.5) (Teacher Training College text) 
If, for the purposes of this exercise, we divorce the relevant sections from the books they are part 
of3, and limit ourselves to analysing the content and presentation of this content, we reach some 
interesting conclusions. 
On a first, cursory look at the materials, the similarity seems obvious: they all deal with the same 
grammatical structure. When looking for differences, the picture may not be so clear. The 
difference in target audience seems to be focussed around a difference in language proficiency 
level, but the objective seems essentially the same, i.e. providing the student with an explanation 
that will aid them in the mastery of this structure. The two kinds of texts differ along an axis of 
level of complexity and detail in the description of the grammatical structure. Let us break down 
this contrast further: 
The EFL classroom materials (i.e. A & B) have the following characteristics: PROVIDE 
EXAMPLES 
 They employ relatively little technical terminology, plus they often provide a glossary of 
specific terms or a summarised grammar section at the back of the book (e.g. Headway). 
 They provide a relative large number of simple examples. 
 They do not complicate matters by providing exceptions to the rules presented. 
 The presentation of the rule is accompanied by a selection of exercises aimed at consolidating 
the intellectual comprehension of the rule. 
 The approach is overwhelmingly practical . In many cases, the presentation is inductive in 
guise in that the structure is introduced by means of a dialogue or other text replete with the 
particular grammatical point. From the text the student is supposed to extract the grammatical 
point, although, in practice, this process if carefully guided by the book and the teacher. 
 The aim is to aid the learner to improve his/her language use by seeking to a) introduce a 
structure for the first time to enable the FL student to incorporate it to his/her active grammar, 
or b) set out the grammatical rules clearly to clarify the structure and attempt to eliminate 
deviant forms that may arise. 
The more advanced texts, on the other hand, have the following characteristics: 
 They include plenty of technical terminology, some times borrowed from different and 
conflicting theoretical frameworks, although they do not present or uphold a particular 
framework. 
 They only present a handful of relevant examples to illustrate the rule(s). 
 
2 The texts selected are considered representative of their class simply becausethey are widely used in the relevant 
contexts. Similar conclusions can be reach if comparing other similar titles. 
3 In this way, setting aside the purported objective of the material. PROVIDE QUOTE. 
 2/5
 
 Exceptions are carefully listed. In fact, this is a central component of the more ‘advanced’ 
nature of the text 
 Exercises are some times included with what appears to be a ‘further practice’ purpose, often 
expanding on the ‘exceptions’section. 
 The approach is usually deductive, with the rule presented first and examples provided later. 
 The aim is teaching about the language/structure, i.e. describing it. The presumption is that 
the reader/student is already familiar with the grammatical point, and the objective is to 
definitively stamp out remaining inadequacies. the text is not necessarily aimed at Foreign 
Language learners but, even in its least prescriptive forms, has the underlying objective of 
describing the standard form to the uninitiated. (whether this is the advanced foreign language 
learner/future teacher, or the native speaker, perhaps of some variety of English that deviates 
from Standard English) 
An interesting point to highlight in this context is the term that is often used to refer to this kind of 
material in the Teacher Training Colleges. This material is often referred to as ‘theory,’ even if it 
does not go beyond the level of description. This leads to a common misconception and a certain 
degrees of confusion among students, even at higher levels of their educational development, in that 
they have difficulty distinguishing theoretical claims from mere classifications or listings, as 
pointed out in Banfi & Iumamto (1998) 
 
A further comparative exercise we engaged in was between the texts mentioned above, taken as one 
kind, perhaps under the label “pedagogical grammars” and other texts based on a generative 
approach to grammar. For this latter category, we chose: 
E) Haegemann, L. and J. Guéron (1999) English Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. 
F) Spencer, A. (1991) Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 
On the one hand, texts of the A-D kind are non-scientific in their approach to the study of language, 
consequently, they are imprecise in nature (eg. Imprecise (e.g. in D “sometimes,” “on the whole,” 
“occasional”), or apparently precise (e.g. A & B) but over-generalising)). On the whole they 
provide a listing of rules and exceptions. They are purely descriptive, with no attempt at an 
explanation or indication of a search for one. Their aim is fundamentally to teach language use. 
We do not want to claim that this type of text is flawed in itself. On the contrary, we believe they 
play an important role in the development of language proficiency of students at various levels. But, 
what we would like to suggest is that they do not fulfil the objectives of Grammar courses at 
Teacher Training Colleges. The development of language proficiency, and therefor the place for 
this sort of material, may well be the role of Language courses, and the choice of material is up to 
Language teachers to determine; but Grammar has a fundamentally different aim, i.e. developing in 
students the critical thinking skills and tools to discover how the language system works. It is in this 
vein that we have opted for a different kind of text for Grammar courses at this level. To illustrate 
the approach presented in these textbooks, we have chosen the sections on the passive construction 
in Haegemann and Guéron (1999) and Spencer (1991). These clearly fulfil our requirements in that 
they are truly scientific in their approach to the study of language4; they aim at providing a precise 
account of particular languages and language in general; they focus on the syntactic analysis of 
structures, over and above the mere categorisation and classification, often allowing for and 
encouraging alternative controversial analyses; and they ultimately seek and explanation for 
syntactic phenomena. If we take, for example the exercise sections in these texts, rather than the 
routine application of a rule presented what we find is the presentation of syntactic problems, which 
often have more than one possible solution. 
In sum, whereas texts A to D present a taxonomic description akin to a listing of rules and patterns; 
E & F aim at providing a theoretical explanation to problems by trying to apply certain principles. 
This quite evident contrast leads us down the road to questioning a number of other widely held and 
often unquestioningly-passed-down practices, such as the notion of parsing or syntactic analysis. 
 
4 Obviously with the proviso that they are textbooks, i.e. simplified versions of current linguistic reseach. 
 3/5
 
We claim that grammatical/syntactic analysis plays a central role in Grammar courses at Teacher 
training Colleges but, when properly understood, extends far beyond the listing of categories, 
structures, rules and exceptions, and patterns that Grammar courses are usually plagued with. This 
taxonomic approach falls squarely within an Encyclopeadic view of education and goes against the 
grain of a the development of critical thinking skills. 
As part of Grammar courses at Teacher Training College, we believe we should provide students 
with an insight into what syntacticians (morphologists and semanticists) do. So, what is that 
exactly? 
According to Green and Morgan (1996) syntacticians engage in two sorts of activities. On the one 
hand, they devote themselves to the formulation and evaluation of syntactic theories. This is an 
endeavour of a fairly abstract nature, and some linguists devote their whole time to it. Onthe other 
hand, they engage in “detailed grammatical analysis of data from one or more languages.” This may 
or may not be for the purposes of “testing predictions of some syntactic theory or hypothesis,” i.e. 
they may be limited to providing a description of the particular language. This is precisely what 
Grammar lecturers who opt for texts such as C & D would claim, i.e. that they are providing 
students with a solid descriptive background before they can, at a later stage, engage in more 
abstract discussion, where this engagement has more to do with understanding the ins and outs of 
an existing and accepted stage of a theory as opposed to encouraging students to set up and test 
their own hypotheses. 
And this is the crux of the problem. In fact, the two kinds of activities that syntacticians, and 
linguists more generally, carry out are intrinsically intertwined. As Green and Morgan (1996) 
themselves put it 
“... it is impossible to articulate a description of a language without making some 
assumptions about what languages are like (that is, without adopting some syntactic theory) 
and it is impossible to test a theory of what languages are like without examining particular 
languages in detail. Likewise, it is impossible to argue for the correctness of an analysis 
without making some assumptions, which constitute a minimal theory.” 
This clearly shows that the notion of presenting a theory-free description is basically misguided. 
Furthermore, this supports the idea that teaching Grammar should be more than teaching about 
syntax (or morphology or semantics), it should be teaching students how to do syntax. As again, 
Green and Morgan (1996) point out: 
“The problem of learning to do syntactic analysis , then, is not so much a matter of learning 
a theory and techniques for describing new bodies of data in the terms it defines, as it is a 
matter of learning how to test and compare analyses, in order to be able to demonstrate 
reasons to accept one’s own analysis.” 
This seemingly simple switch in focus has wide-ranging implications in everything from the 
methodology to the materials used to teach. Moreover, it has implication as to the relevance of 
Grammar teaching to the general aims of teacher education. 
Complementary to the linguistic propertiesof this approach, we can find a number of advantages its 
presents over the traditional approach. Firstly, the divide between theory and practice is eliminated. 
The account provided throughout is based on a theory; i.e. it is scientific, which means students no 
longer perceive a divorce between the down-to-earth, concrete notions that they learn in Grammar I 
courses, and the esoteric, complex ideas discussed in Linguistics courses later on. As a direct 
consequences of this advantage, we find yet another one: this approach aims at searching for 
explanations and will not be satisfied with mere descriptions. The ultimate goal of these 
explanations will be to achieve cross-linguistic, thus further reinforcing the overall aims. 
If we look at the kind of materials we are to choose with this approach in mind, there are a number 
of examples that spring to mind. As well as Rutherford, W. (1998) A Workbook in the Structure of 
English. Oxford: Blackwell.(Assignment 67), there are a number of WORKBOOKS available that 
aptly do this job. These materials use a problem-solving methodology, i.e. they present the students 
with a problem, some data and guide the students down the road to setting up and testing 
hypotheses. 
 4/5
 
This calls upon and seeks to develop a number of skills within the students. Some of these skills are 
specifically related to grammatical/linguistic study, but others are more generic in nature. By 
grammar-specific skills we mean the development of an understanding of how grammatical theories 
are set up and what principles and guidelines rule them; and also, the development of more practical 
skills as regard what to do when confronted with linguistic data, how to draw generalisations and 
abstractions and test them, etc. 
In terms of more generic skills fostered by this approach to linguistic study, we can point to general 
argumentation skills, i.e. the development of arguments that support an analysis as opposed to other 
possible analyses, and the skills involved in the presentation of such argumentation guaranteeing a 
clear interpretation on the part of the audience or reader. these generic skills are clearly not the 
exclusive domain of linguistic study and can (and should) be encouraged in all courses of studies 
undertaken by future teachers as critical thinking should be an essential component of teacher 
education. 
Returning to the advantages presented by this approach to the teaching of Grammar a couple of 
other point should be made. On the one hand, it becomes essential for lecturers to be up-to-date 
with the state-of-the-art in the field. Language, and even more so, the study of language, are far 
from being frozen in time, and the same approach, or indeed the same materials, cannot be used 
year after year without falling into a dangerous misrepresentation of the discipline at large. the 
practice of using the same textbook or set of notes year-in and year-out is simply based on the lack 
of professional seriousness and responsibility, and academic rigour. 
On the other hand, the approach presented in this paper allows students and lecturers the possibility 
of accessing and understanding, within logical limitations, the results of research conducted in 
various areas of linguistic study, e.g. Language Acquisition. Thus, the results presented in, for 
example, Ingram (1989) on the acquisition of the passive construction will be more easily and 
fruitfully understood by someone who has followed and inquisitive, theory-based approach, than by 
someone who was fed a set of rules and lists of exceptions and managed to memorise them for a 
final exam. 
 
Our aims in this paper, we few and fairly simple. We wanted to demonstrate that the grammar 
taught to and learnt by future teachers differs in aim from the grammar taught to foreign language 
students, and that, as a direct consequence, a different approach and different materials should be 
used. Crucially, this difference should not be a question of a greater degree of detail of the 
description presented. Grammar for teachers should have a theoretical foundation, develop students 
generic and specific analytical skills, and provide an up-to-date account of the developments in the 
field. 
 
References 
Abbs, B. and I. Freebairn (1989) Blueprint Intermediate. Harlow, Essex: Longman. 
Banfi, C. & S. Iummato (1998) “Teaching Teacher’s Linguistics or Teaching Teachers Linguistics” 
Paper presented at the FAAPI Annual Conference, Bahía Blanca, Argentina. 
Gramley, S. and K.-M. Pätzol (1992) A Survey of Modern English. London: Routeldge. 
Green, G. M. And J. L. Morgan (1996) Practical Guide to Syntactic Analysis. CSLI Publications. 
Haegemann, L. and J. Guéron (1999) English Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. 
Murphy, R. (1985) English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: CUP. 
Ingram, D. (1989) First Language Acquisition: Method, description and explantion. Cambridge: 
CUP. 
Quirk, R. and S. Greenbaum (1973) A University Grammar of English. Harlow, Essex: Longman. 
Rutherford, W. (1998) A Workbook in the Structure of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Spencer, A. 
(1991) Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 
 5/5
	Abstract 
	Background