An investigation into grammar learning at ho chi minh city university of education foreign language center m a thesis 60 14 10

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ĐỖ NGỌC QUỲNH

AN INVESTIGATION INTO GRAMMAR
LEARNING AT HO CHI MINH CITY
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FOREIGN
LANGUAGE CENTER

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts (TESOL)

Supervisor
ĐOÀN HUỆ DUNG, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH CITY - 2009


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby certificate my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

AN INVESTIGATION INTO GRAMMAR LEARNING AT HO CHI MINH
CITY UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER

In terms of the Statement of Requirements for Theses in Master’s Programs issued by
the Higher Degree Committee.

Ho Chi Minh City, October 2009

ĐỖ NGỌC QUỲNH


RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESES

I hereby state that I, Đỗ Ngọc Quỳnh, being the candidate for the degree of Master
of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use
of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the
Library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with
the normal conditions established by the Library for care, loan, or reproduction of
theses.

Ho Chi Minh City, October 2009

Đỗ Ngọc Quỳnh


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Đoàn Huệ
Dung, for all her patient guidance, continuing encouragement, valuable instructions
and keen revision of this thesis. Without her great help and special care, this thesis
would have never been finished.
Special thanks are also expressed to all of my teachers of TESOL 2005 at the
University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ho Chi Minh City, for their interesting
lectures and whole-hearted guidance.
Many thanks to the teachers and students at UEFLC who have responded to the

questionnaires to provide me such a trustworthy source of data for the research.
Finally, I also want to thank my family for their love and support during the time of
writing this thesis.


ABSTRACT
Input-based approach is a new approach in which the teachers use interpretation
tasks to provide their students with a lot of grammatical input. For these kinds of tasks,
the students are encouraged to focus on both form and meaning of a new structure to
answer the questions. This study aims to find out if interpretation tasks really work in
the grammar teaching and learning at the University of Education Foreign Language
Center (UEFLC).
The data for the research were mainly collected by means of three questionnaires
for 185 students and 15 teachers at UEFLC. The first students’ questionnaire was
conducted before the experimental teaching and the second one was carried out after
the experimental teaching. The third questionnaire was done for the teachers. The
results of the three questionnaires help to find out: (1) the real situation of students’
grammar learning, (2) problems faced by students in learning grammar, (3) if
interpretation tasks really work in facilitating the students’ process of learning
grammar.
The results of the study showed that many students thought that their grammar
knowledge was limited although they have learned English for a long time. They also
had some problems in learning grammar. After the experimental teaching, both
teachers and students had good evaluation of interpretation tasks in understanding form
and meaning. The tasks were also thought to be interesting and easy to do.
Finally, some practical recommendations were introduced to make interpretation
tasks to be more efficiently applied for the students at UEFLC.


Contents

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
1.1.Background to the study ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Grammar learning and teaching at the UEFLC .............................................................. 3
1.3 Aims of the study.......................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research questions ....................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Significance of the study .............................................................................................. 4
1.6. Definitions of terms ..................................................................................................... 4
1.7. Overview of the study .................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 6
2.1 Grammar ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 What is grammar? .................................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Place of grammar in learning and teaching ............................................................. 6
2.1.3 Why is English grammar difficult to learn? ............................................................ 8
2.1.4 Causes of errors in grammar learning ..................................................................... 8
2.1.5 Factors affecting the learning ability of grammatical structures .............................10
2.2 Grammar in different teaching methods .......................................................................14
2.2.1 Grammar Translation Methods (GTM) .............................................................14
2.2.2 Direct Method ..................................................................................................15
2.2.3 Audio-lingual Method (ALM) ..........................................................................15
2.2.4 Comprehension-based approach .......................................................................16
2.2.5 Communicative Approach (CA) .......................................................................16
2.2.6 Input-oriented approach ...................................................................................17
2.2.7 Output-oriented approach .................................................................................18
2.2.8 Presentation, practice, and production procedure ..............................................19
2.3. Interpretation tasks......................................................................................................20
2.3.1 What are interpretation tasks? ...............................................................................20
2.3.2 What do we use interpretation tasks for? ...............................................................20
2.3.3 General principles for the design of interpretation tasks ........................................21
Chapter 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND ETHODOLOGY ......................................................23
3.1 Research goals and methods ........................................................................................23

3.2. Research Design .........................................................................................................24
3.2.1 Subjects ................................................................................................................24
3.2.2 Measurement Instruments .....................................................................................24
3.3 Data collection procedure ............................................................................................29
Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................31
4.1 Responses from the questionnaires...............................................................................31
4.1.1 Students’ responses before the experimental teaching ...........................................31
4.1.2. Students’ responses after the experimental teaching .............................................39
4.1.3 Teacher’s questionnaire.........................................................................................43
4.2 Results from the interviews with teachers ....................................................................49
4.2.1 The first question: Can you tell me about activities in your grammar lessons? ......50
4.2.2 The second question “What do you think of grammar exercises in International
Express coursebooks and workbooks ?” .......................................................................50
4.2.3 The third question “What problems do your students have in learning grammar?” ............50
4.2.4 The fourth question “What do think of the interpretation tasks recommended by the
researcher in teaching grammar?” ................................................................................51
4.3 Findings .......................................................................................................................51


4.3.1 Grammar learning at UEFLC ................................................................................51
4.3.2 Grammar teaching at UEFLC ................................................................................52
4.3.3 The application of interpretation tasks ...................................................................53
Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................55
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................55
5.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................56
5.2.1 For the application of interpretation tasks in grammar teaching .............................56
5.2.2 For grammar teaching at UEFLC ..................................................................................59
5.2.3 For grammar learning at UEFLC...................................................................................60
5.3 Further research ...............................................................................................................60
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................62

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
For the purpose of simplification and convenience in reference, the following
abbreviations are utilized in the thesis:

ALM

Audio-lingual Method

CA

Communicative approach

GTM

Grammar-translation method

HCMC

Ho Chi Minh city

IT

interpretation tasks

PPP

Presentation Practice Production

TESOL

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

UEFLC:

the University of Education Foreign Language Center


LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Students’ characteristics
Table 4.2 Students’ time of learning English
Table 4.3 Students' purposes in studying grammar
Table 4.4 Student's evaluation of their grammar knowledge
Table 4.5 Students' practising grammar at home
Table 4.6 Students' problems in learning grammar
Table 4.7 Students' characteristics of experimental classes
Table 4.8 Students’ evaluation of the interpretation tasks in understanding form and
meaning
Table 4.9 Students’ evaluation of interpretation tasks in arousing interest in learning
grammar
Table 4.10 Students’ evaluation of the applicability of g interpretation tasks
Table 4.11 Teacher’s characteristics
Table 4.12 Teachers’ teaching experience
Table 4.13 Teacher’s qualifications
Table 4.14 Students' difficulties in learning grammar
Table 4.15 Teacher's comments on interpretation tasks in understanding form and
meaning
Table 4.16 Teacher's comments on interpretation tasks in arousing interest
Table 4.17 Teacher's comments on the applicability of interpretation tasks

LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4.1 Students’ evaluations of learning grammar
Chart 4.2 Students’ opinion: The examples are difficult to understand
Chart 4.3 Students’ opinion: The grammar tasks are not interesting
Chart 4.4 Students’ opinion: The grammar section is not clear enough
Chart 4.5 Students' grammar learning methods
Chart 4.6 Teachers’ opinion: The examples are difficult to understand
Chart 4.7 Teachers’ opinion: The tasks are not interesting
Chart 4.8 Teachers’ opinion: The grammar section is not clear enough


1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.Background to the study
Although grammar is only a component of language, it still plays a very important
part in the learner’s success. The learning of grammar serves as a tool towards the
primary purpose of achieving communicative skill as P. Ur (1988: 5) states, “Any
learning of grammar takes place only as incidental to the main objective of successful
communication” and “There is no doubt that knowledge - implicit or explicit - of
grammar rules is essential for the mastery of a language.”
Grammar teaching has traditionally been conducted by means of activities that
provide learners with opportunities to produce sentences containing the targeted
structures. These activities can consist of mechanical pattern-practice drills of the kind
found in the audio-lingual method or situational grammar exercises where the target
structure is contextualized in terms of some real or imaginary situation. The underlying
assumption of these activities or exercises is that requiring learners to produce the
structure correctly and repeatedly helps them to learn it. Researchers have seen that this

traditional production-based approach faces a number of problems. First, there is the
learning ability problem— teaching learners to produce target structures that they are
not developmentally ready or produce may not work. Second, asking learners to
produce grammatical structures they find difficult and then correcting them when they
make mistakes may increase their anxiety and result in a psycho-affective block to
learning (Krashen, 1982). Moreover, current theories of second language acquisition
see production as the result of acquisition rather than the cause. It follows that grammar
can be taught more effectively through supplying input than through manipulating
output.
In reality, the students usually find it hard to comprehend a grammatical item,
especially for the first time. It also takes them quite a long time to comprehend and
learn to use the item. Researchers have been saying for sometime now that you can
lead a student to grammar but you cannot make him learn; that the process of learning


2

is not a mechanistic, linear, input-output one. It seems to be much more capricious than
that. As one researcher, Larsen –Freeman D. (1997: 141-165) put it:
Learning linguistic items is not a linear process - learners do not master one item and
then move on to another. In fact, the learning curve for a single item is not linear
either. The curve is filled with peaks and valleys, progress and backslidings.

According to Ellis, R. (1997: 153), forcing production of a newly-learned item too
soon may be counter-productive, in that the effort involved in articulation diverts
attention away from simply understanding how the new item works: a case of gettingyour-tongue-round-it at the expense of getting-your-mind-round-it. He also suggested a
new approach in teaching grammar, input-based approach, which involves focusing
learners' attention on a targeted structure in the input and enabling them to identify and
comprehend the meaning that it can realize. It emphasizes input processing for
comprehension rather than output-processing for production and requires the use of

interpretation tasks in place of traditional production tasks. According to Ellis, R.
(cited in TESOL Quarterly, 1995) empirical support for an input-based approach to
teaching grammar can be found in the early studies of the comprehension-based
approach. In a review of comprehension-based approach, Gary (1978) identifies four
main advantages: (a) a cognitive advantage (i.e., better L2 learning), (b) an affective
advantage (i.e., the avoidance of the stress and embarrassment that often accompanies
trying to produce sentences in front of others), (c) an efficiency advantage (i.e., a
comprehension-based approach works equally well with low and high aptitude
learners), and (d) a utility advantage (i.e., teaching listening skills helps a learner
become functional in using the L2 and also enables a learner to continue their language
study independently of the teacher).
Because of the four big advantages that the comprehension-based approach can
offer foreign language learners, I made up my mind to teach grammar to my students
with the support of input-based approach, which derives from the comprehensionbased one.


3

1.2 Grammar learning and teaching at the UEFLC
The foreign-language center of the University of Education of Ho Chi Minh City
has been known as a center where people can learn many foreign languages including
English. In order to help them with basic English knowledge as well as the practice of
the four language skills, the general English courses have been introduced. The
International Express coursebooks have been chosen for the general classes since
2006. The academic management board has always encouraged teachers to apply the
communicative approach in teaching and create a learner-centered atmosphere in all
classes. Teachers also have the right to design their own syllabus and lesson plans
provided that the students enjoy them. I have noticed through several years of teaching
that although grammar is included in the curriculum together with the practice of
pronunciation and the four skills, it is not favored by the students who claim that

grammar is a difficult subject. Many teachers also acknowledge that their students do
not have good knowledge of grammar even though they are at Pre-intermediate or
Intermediate level. Actually, they are not able to speak or write English correctly,
which prevents them from communicating effectively.
From my point of view, the problems may be traced back to the teachers’ lack of
grammar activities for their students. After the presentation stage, most of the teachers
at UEFLC make use of all the grammar tasks in the International Express coursebooks
and workbooks for the practice stage. In my opinion, these grammar tasks are not
appropriate for students to comprehend the form and meaning of a new structure
because some tasks are very mechanical and others are very difficult to do. Therefore,
it is suggested that more suitable grammar tasks should be employed for the students at
UEFLC so that they can gain good knowledge of English grammar.
1.3 Aims of the study
The present context of grammar learning in general English classes at the UEFLC
has aroused my interest in discovering more suitable grammar tasks that can facilitate
the grammar learning process. Therefore, my study aims:
-

To find out the problems facing the learners in learning grammar


4

-

To examine the application of interpretation tasks in teaching grammar in order
to facilitate the students’ grammar learning process

-

To propose some pedagogical suggestions for teaching and learning grammar

1.4 Research questions
On the base of the above-mentioned purposes, it is necessary to recognize research
questions in order to pilot the research
-

What are the problems facing the learners in learning grammar?

-

How can interpretation tasks help to facilitate the students’ grammar learning
process?

1.5. Significance of the study
Grammar deserves a noticeable place in the curriculum of general English courses
as it is one of the categories which contribute to the communicative competence.
Without grammar English learners cannot either make complete sentences or make
themselves understood. In other words, in no circumstances can grammatical
competence be separated from communicative competence. However, the students at
UEFLC have encountered quite a lot of problems in learning grammar, which prevents
them from learning English effectively. Therefore, an investigation into how to better
the reality of teaching and learning grammar is a great necessity for the UEFLC and
any other language institutions in Vietnam where the situation is the same.
1.6. Definitions of terms
 Interpretation: This is the process by which learners endeavor to comprehend
input and in so doing pay attention to specific linguistic features and their meanings. It
involves noticing and cognitive comparison and results in intake (Ellis, 1995: 90-91).
 Production: Production typically relies on implicit knowledge, but this can be
supplemented by explicit knowledge through monitoring. Production does not serve as

the primary means for acquiring new linguistic knowledge although it may help
learners to gain mastery over features that have already entered their interlanguage
(Ellis, 1995: 90-91).


5

 Task: Task is an activity which is designed to help achieve a particular learning
goal (Richard, Platt, J. and Platt, D., 1992: 373).
 Input: Input can be defined as language which a learner hears or receives and
from which he or she can learn (Richard, Platt, J. and Platt, D., 1992: 182).
 Output: Output means the language a learner produces by analogy (Richard,
Platt, J. and Platt, D., 1992: 182).
 Intake: Intake is input which is actually helpful for the learner (Richard, Platt, J. and
Platt, D., 1992: 182).
1.7. Overview of the study
The thesis consists of five chapters
Chapter I – Introduction introduces background of the study, grammar learning and
teaching at UEFLC, aims of the study, research questions, significance of the study,
limitations of the study, and overview of the study.
Chapter II - Literature Review presents the theoretical background of the study
including four parts: nature of grammar, grammar in different teaching methods,
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and interpretation tasks.
Chapter III - Research Design and Methodology: describes the issues of the designs
and methodology such as (1) research goals and methods, (2) research design, (3) data
collection procedure
Chapter IV - Findings and Analysis: provides the results of the collected data as well
as discussion of the findings
Chapter V – Conclusions and recommendations: is about how to improve the
process of teaching and learning grammar with the application of interpretation tasks.

6

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Grammar
2.1.1 What is grammar?
Richard. Platt, J. and Platt, D. (1992: 161) defined that grammar is a description of
the structure of a language and the way in which linguistic units such as words and
phrases are combined to produce sentences in the language.
Thornbury S. (1999: 1) had his own definition of grammar. He said that a grammar
is a description of the rules that govern how a language’s sentences are formed.
As for Ur P. (1996: 75), grammar is sometimes defined as ‘the way words are put
together to make correct sentences’.
2.1.2 Place of grammar in learning and teaching
In 1622 a certain Joseph Webbe, schoolmaster and textbook writer, wrote: ‘No man
can run speedily to the mark of language that is shackled ... with grammar precepts.’
He maintained that grammar could be picked up through simply communicating: ‘By
exercise of reading, writing, and speaking ... all things belonging to grammar, will
without labour, and whether we will or no, thrust themselves upon us.’
Webbe was one of the earliest educators to question the value of grammar
instruction, but certainly not the last. In fact, no other issue has so preoccupied theorists
and practitioners as the grammar debate, and the history of language teaching is
essentially the history of the claims and counterclaims for and against the teaching of
grammar. Differences in attitude to the role of grammar underpin differences between
methods, between teachers, and between learners. It is a subject that everyone involved
in language teaching and learning has an opinion on. And these opinions are often
strongly and uncompromisingly stated.
The fact that we all learned our first language without being taught grammar rules
has not escaped theorists. If it works for the first, why shouldn’t it work for the second?

This is an argument that has been around since Joseph Webbe’s day. It received an
impetus in the 1970s through the work of the applied linguist Stephen Krashen.
Krashen made the distinction between learning and acquisition. Learning, according to


7

Krashen, results from formal instruction, typically in grammar, and is of limited use for
real communication. Acquisition, however, is a natural process: it is the process by
which the first language is picked up, and by which other languages are picked up
solely through contact with speakers of those languages. Acquisition occurs when the
learner is exposed to the right input in a stress-free environment so that innate learning
capacities are triggered. Krashen also argued that acquisition is a largely unconscious
process while learning is a conscious one. Success in a second language is due to
acquisition, not learning, he argued.
Other theorists have argued that the learner’s role is perhaps less passive than
Krashen implies, and that acquisition involves conscious process, of which the
fundamental is attention and pointing out features of grammatical system is a form of
consciousness-raising. It may not lead directly and instantly to the acquisition of the
item in question. But it may nevertheless trigger a train of mental processes that in time
will result in accurate and appropriate production.
Therefore, if the teacher uses techniques that direct the leaner’s attention to form,
and if the teacher provides activities that promote awareness of grammar, learning
seems to result. We need, therefore, to add to the pro-grammar position the arguments
for a focus on form and for consciousness-raising. Together they comprise the payingattention-to-form argument. That is to say, learning seems to be enhanced when the
learner’s attention is directed to getting the forms right, and when the learner’s
attention is directed to features of the grammatical system. Furthermore, there are
compelling arguments to support the view that without attention to form, including
grammatical form, the learner is unlikely to progress beyond the most basic level of
communication.

To sum up, grammar needs to be taught from the beginning level in order to
provide learners with a grammatical base and prevent fossilization as well. Then later it
can help them progress beyond the most basic level of communication.


8

2.1.3 Why is English grammar difficult to learn?
Grammar is the tool needed to handle a language correctly. It explains the meaning
of the words, their forms and their functions, and the rules used to build sentences
correctly. English grammar is complex and difficult to master because (1) in each
English-speaking country grammar is taught particular to local, regional versions; (2)
words

are

pronounced

differently

than

their

written

form;

(3)

there are many words having multiple grammatical or semantic meanings; (4)
there are words having the same form, but they take different meanings, depending on
the

place

they

have

within

the

sentence

structure;

(5)

the morphologic sentence elements have both regular and irregular grammatical forms;
(6) there are numerous exceptions to grammatical rules; (7) English is a dynamic
language ( />2.1.4 Causes of errors in grammar learning
English as a second language (ESL) students make second-language errors for four
basic reasons that evolve from linguistic factors:

First-language interference
Transfer of first-language structures to ESL writing may help or hinder an ESL
writer, depending on the similarities or differences between the student’s first and
second languages ( Byrd and Reid, 1997: 122).

Littlewood (1981: 22) also shared his view of this kind of error. Transfer and
overgeneralization are not distinct process. Indeed, they represent aspects of the same
underlying strategy. Both result from the fact that the learner uses what he already
knows about language in order to make sense of new experience. In the case of
overgeneralization, it is his previous knowledge of the second language that the learner
uses. In the case of transfer, the learner uses his previous mother tongue experience as
a mean of organizing the second language data. It is significant that transfer errors are
found to be more frequent with beginners than with intermediate students. The


9

beginner has less previous second language knowledge to draw on in making
hypotheses about the rules, and might therefore be expected to make correspondingly
more use of his first language knowledge.
Overgeneralization of English language rules
Both Byrd and Reid (1997: 122) and Littlewood (1981: 23) agree that the majority
of intralingual errors are instances of the same process of overgeneralization that has
been observed in first language acquisition.
Generalization is, of course, a fundamental learning strategy in all domains, not
only in language. In order to make sense of our world, we allocate items into
categories; on the basic of these categories, we construct ‘rules’ which predict how the
different items will behave. Sometimes, however, our predictions are wrong, probably
for one of two main reasons:
a) For some reason, the rule does not apply to this particular item, even though we
have allocated the item to the appropriate category. We must therefore learn an
exception to the general rule.
b) The item belongs to a different category, which is covered by another rule. We
must therefore either reallocate the item to a different category which we know,
or we must construct a new category and rule.

High level of difficulty of the language structure
According to Byrd and Reid (1997: 122), there are no absolutes of ease and
difficulty in language structure. So although curriculum designers believe that we
should begin with “easy grammar” and progress to more difficult structures, in practice
what is “easy” and “difficult” will differ for students from different language
backgrounds.
Moreover, teachers must not confuse “difficult to explain” with “difficult to learn”.
Some languages may be easy to teach but difficult to learn (e.g., subject-verb
agreement for some learners); others may be the opposite. Still others may be difficult
both to teach and to learn (e.g. articles for some learners). And for learners, both length
of time and consistency of use can vary.


10

2.1.5 Factors affecting the learning ability of grammatical structures
It is necessary to identify a number of factors that create different degrees of
learning difficulty in learning grammar.
Resilient and fragile features
Resilient features include many syntactical features such as word order rules (e.g.
the position of adjectives in noun phrases). These features are manifest in all varieties
of language, including simple registers such as pidgins and foreigner talk, and may be
acquirable as a product of learning how to communicate. In contrast, fragile features,
which include many of the morphological properties of a language (e.g. verb
inflections), are often missing in non-primary acquisition. Learners in the French
immersion studies. for example, appear able to learn resilient features from classroom
communication but fail to learn fragile features. It can be argued, therefore, that grammar
instruction should focus on fragile features (Goldin-Meadow 1982).
Saliency
Saliency refers to the ease with which learners are able to perceive grammatical

features in input (Schmidt: 1990). If it assumed that learners need to attend
consciously to features in the input in order for acquisition to take place, it is
reasonable to assume that features that are salient will be attended to, and thus acquired
more easily than those that are not. For example, no is likely to be more salient than not
in input because it can be used by itself and frequently receives emphatic stress. This
may explain why most learners of L2 English acquire no before not. Learners may
benefit by receiving instruction directed at less salient items.
Frequency
Ellis (1994) claims that there is mixed evidence to suggest that the frequency with
which different items appear in the input helps to determine their acquisition. This is
probably because frequency interacts with other factors such as saliency. Highly
frequent but non-salient and semantically complex forms such as articles ‘a’ and ‘the’
are notoriously difficult to learn. On the other hand verb+ing, which tends to occur
frequently in input to beginners and which is more salient than simple verb, is learnt


11

easily and often overused. Frequency by itself cannot be easily used as a criterion for
selecting which structures require explicit instruction.
Redundancy
A grammatical feature is considered redundant if it does not contribute any meaning to
the message in which it occurs. Obviously, therefore, whether a feature is or is not
redundant depends on the context.
Some grammatical features are invariably redundant, however. That is, they always
occur in contexts where there is some other signal of the meanings they convey. Third
person -s and auxiliary 'be' in the progressive tenses are examples. Such features are
often learnt late or not at all. They may benefit from being explicitly taught (Ellis:
1994).
Scope and reliability

Scope refers to how many items a particular rule applies to, while reliability refers
to the extent to which a rule is subject to exceptions. According to Hulstijn and de
Graaff (1994: 103), a rule is large in scope if it covers more than 50 cases, while it is
high in reliability if it applies to close to 90 percent of cases. For example, in English,
the plural -s rule can be considered high in scope (i.e. there are many more than 50
nouns that add -s when they are pluralized) and is also high in reliability (i.e. the rule
probably applies to more than 90 percent of nouns). It probably makes good sense to
focus instruction on rules that are large in scope and high in reliability.
Marked vs. unmarked features
The notion of markedness is a somewhat vague one as there is often no clear basis
for establishing which features are unmarked and which ones are marked. However,
the notion has been invoked to explain why certain features resist acquisition and also
why learners are able to project beyond what they have been taught. It is possible that
instruction directed at marked grammatical properties such as passive constructions or
object relative pronouns will promote more efficient learning because it helps learners
to acquire features that they may not acquire naturally (Long 1988). Also, it may
enable learners to acquire implicationally related unmarked structures. It does not


12

follow, however, that instruction should always focus on the marked structures.
Preposition stranding (e.g.'Who did you give the book to?’) is considered marked in
relation to pied-piping (e.g. 'To whom did you give the book?') yet is acquired more
easily, probably because it is more frequent in the input (Bardovi-Harlig: 1987).
Linguistic complexity
There is no simple definition of linguistic complexity. It is helpful to make a clear
distinction between items that are linguistically complex with regard to implicit
learning (Krashen's 'acquisition') and those that are complex in terms of explicit
learning. The factors mentioned above in particular saliency, redundancy, and

markedness may contribute to complexity in implicit learning. However, in explicit
learning, other factors are involved, in particular, the difficulty of representing a rule in
a declarative, propositional form. It is, for example, much easier to explain plural -s
than articles.
There are two competing views regarding the relationship between linguistic
complexity, learning ability. and grammar instruction. One is that features which are
formally simple (e.g. involve the addition of a single element to a grammatical string)
and which manifest clear form-function relationships (e.g. a single form realizes a
single meaning) are good candidates for form-focused instruction. Examples are plural
-s and regular past tense -ed

in English. The alternative view is that grammar

instruction should focus on complex rules. Hulstijn and

De Graaff (1994), for

example, argue that simple grammatical rules are likely to be salient in the input and
thus can be learnt implicitly. Complex rules, on the other hand, will not be so salient
and so may not be learnt without considerable effort. However, Hulstijn and De Graaff
appear to conflate complexity with lack of saliency. In fact, a feature may be simple
but non-salient (e.g. third-person-s) or it may be semantically complex and yet
relatively salient (e.g. verb + ing).

Items vs. rules


13

As Hulstijn and De Graaff (1994) point out some grammatical features can be

acquired as items or as rules. For example, learners of L2 French may learn the gender
of nouns item by item or they may learn the rules for determining which noun is
masculine and which is feminine. Similarly, dative alternation in English may involve
item learning (i.e. learning which patterns are possible with particular verbs) or
system learning (i.e. learning which kind of verb takes which pattern). Some
grammatical features, however, necessarily entail system learning (e.g. English
articles) while some probably only involve item learning (e.g. verb complementation in
English).
Again, conflicting views are evident when it comes to determining which kind of
feature is best suited to form-focused instruction. Schwartz (1993) argues that items
can be explicitly taught but not rules, at least where implicit knowledge is concerned.
Rules can only be learnt via positive evidence (i.e. via communicative input).
Hulstijn and De Graaff (1994), however, argue that explicit instruction should focus on
rule learning rather than item learning.
Congruence with L1 forms
According to White (1 9 9 1 ) an d Harley (1989), certain target language structures
that differ from the learners' L1 may prove difficult to acquire naturally. This appears
to happen in cases of indeterminate structures such as adverb position, which display
considerable cross-linguistic variation, and also in cases of structures which differ
from the L1 but nevertheless manifest a crucial degree of similarity with it (e.g.
imparfait and passé composé for English-speaking learners of French or negatives for
German learners of L2 English). However, not all non-congruent structures pose
problems. Japanese learners, for example, do not generally experience problems in
learning English word order. The inadequacies of predictions based on a contrastive
analysis of the learners' L1 and the target language are now well documented. It is
necessary, therefore, to focus instruction not just on those target structures where transfer
is likely to take place.
Developmental and variational features

14

Some grammatical feature are subject to processing constraints and are acquired in
a developmental sequence, while others can be acquired at any time providing the
learner is sufficiently motivated to master target language norms. Instruction directed
at developmental features will only work if the learner is psycho linguistically ready.
Instruction directed at variational features is not subject to such constraints and,
therefore, may have a better chance of succeeding. However, Pienemann (l9 85) also
suggests that the effects of instruction on variational features may not be durable. The
distinction between developmental and variational features is potentially an important
one but, to date, there are no independent means for classifying grammatical features.
A variational feature seems to be any feature that has been shown not to be
developmental.
These, then, are some of the factors which have been identified as of potential
relevance in the choice of instructional content. But it is not clear how they should be
applied in designing a grammatical syllabus. For a start, some factors would appear
to be in conflict with others. This is not surprising as they are based on very different
theoretical perspectives. But it is clearly necessary to address the conflicts. For
example, how does one reconcile the requirements that features be linguistically simple
and that they be marked and therefore, potentially complex and functionally opaque?
There is a need to balance teaching what is learnable, which will ensure the
effectiveness of the instruction, with teaching what is problematic to the learner, which
will ensure the efficiency of the instruction. But we are a long way from knowing how
to achieve this balance.

2.2 Grammar in different teaching methods
2.2.1 Grammar Translation Methods (GTM)
Grammar-translation method (GTM) was commonly used in the early twentieth
century to teach foreign, mainly European languages. This method was clearly rooted
in the formal teaching of Latin and Greek which prevailed in Europe for many

centuries. Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. (2001: 3) listed the major characteristics


15

of GTM in teaching grammar, “Grammar is taught deductively - that is, by presentation
and study of grammar rules, which are then practiced through translation exercises. In
most Grammar-translation texts, a syllabus was followed for a sequencing of grammar
points throughout a text, and there was an attempt to teach grammar in an organized
and systematic way.”
2.2.2 Direct Method
This method emerged in mid-to-late nineteenth century, challenging the way
that GTM focused exclusively on the written language. By claiming to be a ‘natural’
method, the direct method prioritized oral skills, and while following a syllabus of
grammar structures, rejected explicit grammar teaching. The learners, it was supposed,
picked up the grammar of their mother tongue, simply by being immersed in language
(Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S., 2001: 9). They also point out that grammar was
taught inductively and new teaching points were taught through modeling and practice.
2.2.3 Audio-lingual Method (ALM)
The emergence of the Audio-lingual method resulted from the increased attention
given to foreign language teaching in the United States toward the end of the 1950s. As
a largely North America invention, the ALM stayed faithful to the Direct Method
belief in the primacy of speech, but was even stricter in its rejection of grammar
teaching. It derived its theoretical base from behaviorist psychology, which considered
language as simply a form of behavior, to be learned through the formation of correct
habits. The characteristics of grammar teaching can be summed up as the followings
(cited in Brown, H. D., 1994: 57)
 Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis and taught one at a
time.
 Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills

 There is little or no grammatical explanation
 Grammar is taught by inductive analogy rather than deductive explanation
The ALM enjoyed many years of popularity until it met the attack from many
linguists. Noam Chomsky rejected the structuralist approach to language description as