Critical Review on Teaching Grammar

CRITICAL REVIEW

Teaching Grammar

(Diane Larsen - Freeman. In “Teaching English as a Second or Foreign language”. Celce-Murcia (Ed).  IIIrd edition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Pp. 251-265).

Analyzed by

Suprihatin

State University of Malang, Graduate Program in English Language Teaching

E-mail: Suprihatinrafza@yahoo.co.id

Blog: wingpascasarjanainggris

Abstract

This paper reviews the book written by Diane Larsen – Freeman entitled teaching grammar. The result of the reviewing will be good for the readers, the reviewers as well as the writer to develop better comprehension in critical review of applying linguistic.

1. Introduction

Over the countries, second language educators have alternated between two types of approaches to language teaching. Those that are focus on analyzing the language and those that focus on using the language. Early in the previous century, this distinctive pattern was observable in the shift from the more form-oriented grammar translation approach to the use-oriented direct method (Celce-Murcia, 1980). A more recent example of the shift is the lost of popularity of the cognitive-code approach, in which analyzing structures and applying rules are common practices, and the rise of more communicative approaches, which emphasize language use over rules of language use (Widdowson, 1978).

In this chapter, we will encourage a balance between grammar and communication.  Equating grammar with a form and the teaching of grammar with the teaching explicit linguistic rules concerning form are unduly limiting, representing what we have call myths (Larsen-freeman, 1995). Grammar is about form and one way to teach form is to give students rules. However, grammar is about much more than form, and its teaching is still served if students are simply given rules.

2. Result and Discussion

Since our goal is to achieve a better fit between grammar and communication, it is not helpful to think of grammar as discrete set of meaningless, decontextualized, static structures. Nor it is helpful to think of grammar solely as prescriptive rules about linguistic form. Grammatical structures not only have (morphosyntactic) form, they are also used to express meaning (semantics) in context appropriate use (pracmatics). In order to guide us in constructing an approach to teaching grammar that strives to meet this definition, it would be helpful to have a frame of reference.

A three dimensional grammar framework must concern us structure or form, semantic or meaning, and the pragmatic condition governing use. Moreover, the dimension not hierarchically arranged as many traditional characterizations linguistic strata depict. Form/structure are contains of morphosyntactic and lexical patterns, phonemic/graphemic patterns. Meaning/semantic represents by lexical meaning and grammatical meaning. Use/pragmatics related with social context, linguistic discourse context and presuppositions about context.

However important and necessary it is for teachers to have a comprehensive knowledge of their subject matter, it is equally important for them to understand their students learning process. This understanding can be partly informed by insights from second language acquisition (SLA) research concerning how students naturally develop their ability to interpret and produce grammatical utterances. Learner do not learn structures one at a time, it is not a matter of accumulating structural entities (Rutherford 1987). Even a learners appear to have mastered a particular structures, it is not uncommon to find backsliding occurring with the introduction of new form to the  learner interlanguage. Second language learner rely on the knowledge and the experience they have. If they are beginners, they will rely on their L1 as a source f hypotheses about how the L2 works, when they are more advanced, they will rely increasingly on the L2.

Teaching grammar means enabling language students to use linguistic forms accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. In keeping with language form approaches, traditional grammar teaching has employed a structural syllabus and lesson composed of three phases: presentation, practice and production (or communication). Underlying this approach is the assumption that one systematically builds towards communication. Even on if the grammar to be worked on is derivatives rather than scheduled in advance. More proactive way to promote students noticing a particular grammatical structure is to highlight it in a text in some fashion. In this cases students focus attention on grammar structures that operate at the discourse level of language, such as article or verb tenses.

It is important to emphasized meaningful practice of form to several reasons. Meaningless mechanical drills, such as repetition drill, commonly associated with behaviorist approaches to learning, do not engage the learner in the target behavior of conveying meaning through language. The students motivation is likely to be enhanced  if  students are able to interact in the way that is meaningful to them. Then, they are likely to be more attentive if they are saying something meaningful. What is significant to remember is that the activity should be structured in such a way that it is compatible with the characteristic presented earlier.

If the teacher has decided that the challenge of particular structures lies in the semantic dimension, then a different source of practice activity should be planned. It would seem that meaning would call for some short of associative learning (N. Ellis, 1998) where students have opportunities to associate the form and the meaning of the particular target structure. It has been our experience that repetition is not needed to the same extent as it is when teaching some aspect of the formal dimension.

Finally, the form, meaning and framework can be used by teachers to access where there are gaps in their own knowledge of English grammar. When they can consult a reference grammar. By exploring the dimension of grammar and how to teach them. Teachers will develop their professional knowledge base, which will, in turn, benefit students as they strive to enhance their grammatical proficiency.

3. Conclusion

From the discussion above, knowing grammar learning strategies is essential for the betterment of the learning continuance for the students, practitioners and material designers. Grammar is not a list of rules which can be applied to any sentence regardless of the context of use. Successful communication is marked by a skill in exploiting the grammatical resource to match the meaning. This skill is grammaring, the dynamic process of relating form and structure to meaningful unit. The development of English as International language has created huge interest in socio-linguistic so it is appropriate that grammar is reexamined in this new environment. It is important to consider that grammar allows the same message to be delivered in different way according to the anticipated impact on the receiver. Grammar is much more about our humanness than some static list of rules and exception suggest. Grammar allows us to choose how we present ourselves to the words, some time conforming to social norms yet all the while stabling our individual identities,(Larsen-Freeman, 1997). In effect, each grammatical choice is unique for what individual in that context of use. This is not such a bold statement as the inherent creativeness of language has always been a tenet of transformational grammar.

References

Larsen-Freeman, D., (2001). Teaching grammar. In“Teaching English as a Second or Foreign language”. Celce-Murcia (Ed).  IIIrd edition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Pp. 69-84).

Rimmer Wayne, (2010). Teaching Language from Grammar to Grammaring. http://ihjournal.com/teaching-language-from-grammar-to-grammaring