Você está na página 1de 22

Hong Kongjournal ofApplied Linguistics Volume], 1996

An Organic Approach to the Teaching of Grammar


David Nunan,
The English Centre
University of Hong Kong
Abstract
Despite the advances that have been made in discourse analysis and
the development of functional grammars, a decontextualised view
of grammar persists in the popular imagination, in many textbooks,
and in a great deal of pedagogical practice. The purpose of this
paper is to examine the relationship between grammar and
discourse, and to explore the implications of this relationship for
language education. In the paper, I shall argue that the linear
approach to language acquisition, which has dominated pedagogy,
is problematic, and does not reflect what is currently known about
processes of acquisition. In place of the linear view, I shall argue for
an `organic' approach, and shall suggest that such an approach is
more consistent with what we know about second language
acquisition than the linear approach. In the second part of the
paper, I shall explore the pedagogical implications of this
alternative approach.
Approaches to the Teaching of Grammar
The linear approach
The linear approach to language learning is based on the premise
that learners acquire one language item at a time, for example, that in
learning English they master the simple present, move on to the
present continuous, progress to the simple past, and so on. In this
sense, learning another language is like constructing a wall . The
language wall is erected one linguistic `brick' at a time. The easy
grammatical bricks are laid at the bottom of the wall, and they provide
a foundation for the more difficult ones . The task for the learner is to
get the linguistic bricks in the right order : first the word bricks, and
then the sentence bricks . If the bricks are not in the correct order the
wall will collapse under its own ungrammaticality .
65
AnOrganic Approach t o t he Teaching ofGrammar
There are some serious problems wit h t his linear view. In t he first
place, t he not ions of `grammar' and `grammat icalit y' underpinning
t he view are t aken as unproblemat ic. Secondly, t he view is not
support ed by research int o second language acquisit ion.
From a linear perspect ive, mast ery of a language is essent ially
about get t ing t he bit s in t he right order at t he level of t he sent ence .
The t ask for t he second language learner is t o learn how t o get t he
`bricks' in t he same order as a nat ive speaker. While t his normat ive
view of grammat icalit y has been quest ioned by numerous linguist s, it
seems t o have been accept ed by language t eachers, curriculum
developers and t ext book writ ers. That t he not ion is problemat ic can
be demonst rat ed by some simple int rospect ive t est s of grammat icalit y .
Consider t he following, which have been t aken from a variet y of
sources, including (Langunoff 1992, cit ed in Celce-Murcia and
Olsht ain; Odlin, 1994; Nunan, 1993 .
The gang were plot t ing a t ake-over.
Everybody is ready now, aren't t hey?
Neit her Fred nor Harry had t o work lat e, did t hey?
Someone has deliberat ely made t hemselves homeless.
Anyone running a business should involve t heir spouse .
My hair needs washed.
What t he cat did was at e t he rat .
In a grammat icalit y judgement t est , all but t he last t wo of t hese
were found t o be accept able by a group of nat ive speakers despit e t he
fact t hat t hey violat e linguist ic `fact s' relat ing t o subject -verb and
pronoun agreement . Most nat ive speakers seem t o find t hem
unexcept ional despit e t he violat ions. The penult imat e sent ence was
deemed accept able by some speakers of Americanand Scot t ish English
despit e violat ing t he linguist ic `fact ' t hat in verbal const ruct ions of t his
kind, `need' must be followed by t he `-ing' form of t he verb . The last
was considered accept able when heard, alt hough around half of t he
sample ident ified t he rule `violat ion' whent hey saw it writ t en down.
Given t his uncert aint y among nat ive speakers, t he appropriat e
course of act ion might seem t o be t o t urn t o t he expert s for guidance .
Linguist s and language educat ors spend t heir professional lives sort ing
66
HongKongJournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996
out and attempting to transmit ` linguistic facts' , and it would therefore
seem reasonable for them to adjudicate on questions of grammar and
grammaticality . However, when it comes to judgements of
grammaticality, even linguists would appear to be in dispute. In a
study carried out by Ross (1979) there was considerable disagreement
amongst linguists as to the grammaticality of the following question:
What will the grandfather clock stand betweenthe bed and?
Among nine native English speaking linguists, two found the
question completely acceptable, two found it marginally acceptable,
and five found it to be completely unacceptable .
A similar picture emerges when the views of language educators
are sought . Schmidt and McCreary (1977) presented ESL teachers with
pairs of sentences such as the following:
There' s about five minutes left .
1 .

There are about five minutes left .


2.

In a test of spontaneous usage, a large majority of the subjects used


(a) . However, in a later test, when asked which form they used,
most reported using (b) . In a subsequent test, the informants were
asked to judge the correctness of the probes . Only a small
minority considered (a) to be correct . One wonders what students
might think, hearing their teachers using forms which they have
been told are incorrect .
Odlin (1994), in an investigation of grammaticality and acceptability,
concluded that there are important limitations on the ability of
` experts' to provide reliable judgements .
Few, if any, linguists or teachers have irrefutable intuitions
about grammaticality, even though many of their
judgements are reliable. Both competence and performance
limitations affect expert judgements of grammaticality, and
these limitations can likewise affect judgements of
acceptability . In linguistics, there is a growing awareness of
such limitations, even if some grammarians continue to
dodge the epistemological question What is a linguistic fact?
posed by Labov (1975) . (Odlin 1994 : 284)-
67
AnOrganicApproach to the Teaching ofGrammar
These examples serve to underline the fact that it makes little sense to
talk about linguistic facts at the level of the isolated sentence because,
with few exceptions, these will be conditioned by the linguistic and
experiential context in which they occur. I therefore take issue with
those ( see, for example Gregg ( 1989) who argue for the independence
of grammar, and would, myself, argue for a reversal of the order
of
priority, that is, for the primacy of discourse in language . Here, I take
discourse to be any naturally occurring stretch of language occurring
in context ( Carter, 1993: 22). Without reference to context, it makes
little sense to speak of ` facts' , ` correctness' , or ` propriety' .
The linear view is also betrayed by what we currently know about
language acquisition. I t is simply not the case that language learners
acquire one target item, perfectly, one at a time. Kellerman( 1983), for
example, notes the ` u-shaped behavior' of certain linguistic items in
learners' interlanguage development . I f we test a learner' s ability to use
a particular grammatical form ( for example, the simple present) several
times over a period of time, we will find their accuracy rates varying.
The accuracy will not increase in a liner fashion, from 20% to 40%
through to 100%, but will at times actually decrease . ( Rutherford,
1987).
How can we explain this phenomenon? I t can be explained with
reference to the ` organic' metaphor. Rather than being isolated
` bricks' , the various elements of language interact with, and are
affected by other elements to which they are closely related in a
functional sense. Alearner' s accuracy in using the simple present will
deteriorate ( temporarily) at the point whenhe or she is beginning to
acquire the present continuous .
An` organic' view of language development
I believe that the adoptionof an` organic' perspective is central to
our understanding of language acquisition and use, and that without
such a perspective, our understanding of other dimensions of language
such as the notion of ' grammaticality' will be piecemeal and
incomplete, as will any attempt at understanding and interpreting
utterances in isolation from the contexts in which they occur. The
organic metaphor would see second language acquisition more like
6 8
Hong KongJournal ofApplied L inguis t ic s Volumel, i 996
growing a garden t han building a wall . F rom om s uc h a pers pec t ive,
learners do not learn one t hing perfec t ly one at a t ime, but learn
numerous t hings s imult aneous ly (and imperfec t ly) . The linguis t ic
flowers will not all appear at t he s ame t ime, nor will t hey all grow at
t he s ame rat e . Some will even appear t o wilt , for a t ime, before
renewing t heir growt h. The rat e and s peed will be det ermined by a
c omplex int erplay of fac t ors relat ed t o s peec h proc es s ing c ons t raint s
(Pienemann and Johns t on 1987) ; pedagogic al fac t ors (Pic a 1985) ;
ac quis it ional proc es s es Johns t on, 1987) ; and t he influenc e of t he
dis c ours al environment in whic h t he it em oc c urs (Mc Cart hy, 1991 ;
Nunan, 1993) .
Johns t on (1987), who has one of t he larges t c omput eris ed SL A dat a-
bas es ever c ompiled, provides an eloquent c as e for an organic view. (I t
is int eres t ing t o not e his us e of t he word `s eedbed' in his des c ript ion of
t he ac quis it ion of negat ion. )
. . . t he c as e of `don(`t )' s hows t hat formulaic language c an
s erve as what we might c all t he s eedbed of propos it ional
language . While it may s t ill be nec es s ary t o us e t erms lik e
formula in s ome k inds of linguis t ic dis c us s ion, t he way in
whic h a c hunk lik e `don't ' is reanalys ed by applic at ion of
t he rules for it s produc t ion in a widening range of verbal
environment s mak es it c lear t hat t he progres s ion from
formulaic language t o produc t ive language involves no hard
and fas t dis t inc t ions . Johns t on 1987: 24)
As Johns t on, and ot hers , have s hown, it is part ic ularly import ant t o
es t ablis h t he c orrec t pedagogic al relat ions hip bet ween grammat ic al
it ems and t he dis c ours al c ont ext s in whic h t hey oc c ur . Grammar and
dis c ours e are t ied t oget her in a fundament ally hierarc hic al relat ions hip
wit h lower-order grammat ic al c hoic es being driven by higher-order
dis c ours al ones . This view has major implic at ions for applied linguis t ic
res earc h as well as language pedagogy . F rom t his pers pec t ive, `get t ing it
right ' is not an unproblemat ic is s ue of s ort ing out linguis t ic fac t s . I f we
are t o `get it right ', we need t o rec ognis e t hat effec t ive c ommunic at ion
involves ac hieving harmony bet ween func t ional int erpret at ion and
formal appropriac y .
69
AnOrganic Approach t o t he Teaching ofGrammar
The problemat icit y of separat ing sent ence lev el and discourse
lev el analysis is not new. As far back as 1952, Harris point ed out t hat
grammar and discourse are syst emat ically relat ed, alt hough his claim
t hat grammar prov ides t he building blocks for creat ing discourse
(Harris 1952) would seem t o accord primacy t o grammar. More
recent ly, McCart hy (1991 : 62) has argued t hat " . . . grammar is seen t o
hav e a direct role in welding clauses, t urns and sent ences int o discourse
The not ion t hat grammar can be t aught from a sent ence-lev el,
cont ext -free approach has also been at t acked from v arious quart ers in
recent years . Not surprisingly, t his at t ack has come from t hose who
v iew language as a t ool for t he creat ion of meaning. Adv ocat es of
cont ext -sensit iv e analyses include specialist s in pragmat ics such as
Lev inson (1983) who argues t hat t here are v ery few cont ext -free rules,
and who point s out t hat t he v ast majorit y of rule-gov erned choices
t hat a language user makes are cont ext dependent . Language educat ors
such as Celce-Murcia and Olsht ain (fort hcoming) also maint ain t hat
t here are v ery few grammat ical element s t hat are not sensit iv e t o, and
affect ed by, t he discoursal cont ext s in which t hey occur. Celce-Murcia
and Olsht ain argue t hat t he following represent s a fairly
comprehensiv e list of t hose grammat ical feat ures t hat are complet ely
cont ext -free . (They also point out t hat ev en sent ence lev el rule
' v iolat ions' canbe explained wit h reference t o cont ext . )
subject -v erb agreement
det erminer - nounagreement
use of gerunds aft er preposit ions
reflexiv e pronominalizat ionwit hint he clause
some - any supplet ion in t he env ironment of negat ion.
These examples point t o t he essent ial problemat icit y and complexit y
of grammat ical ' rules' once act ual use is t aken int o account . I believ e
t hat t he implicat ions of all t his for pedagogy are fairly significant , and
shall spell t hese out in t he concluding sect ion of t he paper.
The primacy of discourse is ev ident in t he many element s wit hina
sent ence t hat canonly be int erpret ed wit h reference t o ot her element s
beyond t he sent ence . I nt he following ext ract , t he underlined it ems are
7 0
HongKongjournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1596
uninterpretable if one relies exclusively on the immediate sentence
within which the elements occur .
A common criticism of the simple alternative-response type
item is that a pupil may be able to recognize a false
statement as incorrect but still not know what is correct .
For example , whenpupils answer the following item as false,
it does not indicate that they know what negatively charged
particles of electricity are called. All it tells us is that they
know they are not called neutrons .
T/ F Negatively charged particles of electricity are called
neutrons .
This is a rather crude measure of knowledge, because there is
an inestimable number of things that negatively charged
particles of electricity are not called . To overcome such
difficulties , some teachers prefer to have the pupils change
all false statements to true. Whenthis is done, the part of the
statement it is permissible to change should be indicated.
Unless the key words to be changed are indicated in the
correction-type true-false item, pupils are liable to rewrite
the entire statement . In addition to the increase in scoring
difficulty, this frequently leads to true statements which
deviate considerably from the original intent of the item.
(Gronland 1981 : 165) .
The importance of context is also evident when considering the
ordering of elements within the clause. Speakers of English have
choices as to how they distribute information within the clause. In
other words, they can convey the identical information using a variety
of different sentence forms . Consider the following alternative ways of
expressing the proposition: "The research committee opposed the
funding cuts' .
The funding cuts were opposed by the research committee .
It was the research committee that opposed the funding cuts .
It was the funding cuts that the research committee opposed.
What the research committee did was oppose the funding cuts .
Opposed the funding cuts, the research committee did.
The research committee, it opposed the funding cuts .
71
AnOrganicApproach to the Teaching ofGrammar
Froma discourse perspectiv e, these items are not infree v ariation. The
option that is actual l y sel ected by the speaker w il l depend on the
context in w hich the utterance occurs and the status of the
information w ithin the discourse . One important consideration is
w hether the information has al ready been introduced into the
discourse, or is assumed to be know nto the reader or l istener ( that is,
w hether it is ` giv en' or ` new ' ) . I t is important to bear in mind, w hen
considering the issue of giv enand new information in discourse that it
is the speaker/w riter w ho decides onthe status of the information. As
a rough rul e of thumb, the new information in a sentence or utterance
in Engl ish general l y comes l ast . I n the statement "The research
committee opposed the funding cuts" the assumed know l edge is that
the research committee opposed something, and the new information
is that it w as funding cuts that w ere opposed .
The cl ose hierarchical rel ationship betw een discourse
considerations and grammatical structuring in rel ation to sentence
internal el ements can be seen if w e prov ide questions to w hich the
abov e statements might be appropriate responses .
Question:

What did the research committee do?


Response:

I t opposed the funding cuts?


Question:

What happened about the funding cuts?


Response :

They w ere opposed by the research committee.


Question:

Did the Deputy VCoppose the funding cuts?


Response:

No, it w as the research committee that opposed the cuts .


Question:

Did the research committee oppose the additional grant


to the pol y technics?
Response: No, it w as the funding cuts that w ere opposed by
theresearch committee.
I t is w orth noting in these contextual ised utterances, the
repl acement of ful l nounphrases by pronominal forms . This il l ustrates
the interaction betw een different discoursal phenomena in this
instance, the distribution of giv en-new information and the use of
cohesionto track v arious entities w ithinthe discourse .
72
Hong Kongjournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996
Pedagogical Implications
What are the practical implications of this ` organic' approach to
language acq uisition? I b eliev e that they are far reaching, and that they
hav e particular pertinence within the context of current deb ates ov er
language standards in Hong Kong. In the first place, they illustrate the
naiv ete of calls for a return to the grammar teaching methods of the
past . When grammar is examined as it is actually acq uired and used,
the full complexity of language b egins to emerge . The discussion serv es
to show that grammatical rules deriv ed from sentence lev el analysis are
almost certain to ov ergeneralise, and to lead learners into error when
they attempt to deploy such rules in communication. The analysis also
rev eals the futility of the ' b uilding b lock' approach to pedagogy which
attempts to dev elop proficiency b y teaching isolated sentence- lev el
structures for sub seq uent deployment in the construction of discourse .
There is enough ev idence b eginning to emerge from second language
acq uisition research to suggest that the process should b e rev ersed, that
we should teach from higher to lower lev el elements . Such research
shows that acq uisition occurs through activ e engagement in discoursal
encounters, and that out of such encounters linguistic mastery at the
lev el of the sentence emerges . In other words, it is out of discourse
that grammar emerges, not v ice v ersa.
A pedagogy exploiting this v iew would show learners how
grammar enab les them to make meanings of increasingly sophisticated
kinds : how it enab les them to escape from the tyranny of the here and
now ( Halliday, 1985) . It would show them that without tenses and
time adv erb ials, they would b e unab le to refer to things that happened
last week or yesterday, that without conditionals, they would b e
unab le to speculate or hypothesize, and that without modals, their
ab ility to conv ey interpersonal meanings would b e sev erely impaired .
Unfortunately, the sentence lev el, context- free v iew of grammar
underpinning many courseb ooks teaches grammar as form, without
making clear the relationship b etween form and function. Learners are
taught ab out the forms rather than how to use the forms to
communicate meaning. For example, they are taught how to
transform sentences from the activ e v oice into the passiv e, and b ack
into the activ e v oice, without indicating the communicativ e ends for
7 3
AnOrganicApproach t o t he Teaching of Grammar
which t he passive voice in English is deployed: t o enable t he speaker
or writ er t o place t he communicat ive focus ont he act ion rat her t han
t he performer of t he act ion, t o avoid referring t o t he performer of t he
act ion, and so on. I f t he communicat ive value of alt ernat ive
grammat ical forms is not made clear t o learners, t hey come away from
t he classroom wit h t he impression t hat t he alt ernat ive forms ex ist
largely t o deny t hem ent rance t o t he second language speaking club .
The assumpt ion underlying most t ex t books is t hat learning is a
linear process, t hat grammat ical knowledge is built up in t he learner in
much t he same way as a building is const ruct ed . Grammat ical
compet ence is acquired one grammat ical ` brick' at a t ime . However, it
is clear from SLAresearch t hat t he process does not work like t his at
all ( see, for ex ample, Larsen-Freeman and Long 1 9 9 1 ) . As indicat ed
earlier, learners do not learn one grammat ical feat ure perfect ly, one at
a t ime, rat her, t hey learn numerous feat ures imperfect ly at t he same
t ime . I n addit ion, t he development of t heir abilit y t o use t he language
is ` unst able' , and t heir accuracy rat es will vary over t ime as one
grammat ical form is dest abilised by ot hers . This inst abilit y, and t he
int eract ion bet weenclosely relat ed grammat ical forms account s for t he
so-called ` u-shaped' development of many forms ident ified by
Kellerman( 1 9 8 3 ) .
The reason why a great deal of grammat ical inst ruct ion is
relat ively unsuccessful is t hat such pedagogy divorces grammat ical
form and communicat ive funct ion. What is needed, is a pedagogy
which makes t ransparent t he relat ionships bet weenform and funct ion.
I t will t hen be easier for learners t o appreciat e t he fact t hat alt ernat ive
forms ( for ex ample, act ive and passive voice, subordinat ion and co-
ordinat ion) do not ex ist simply t o make t hings difficult for t hem, but
t o enable t hem t o ex press different kinds of meanings .
I nt erms of t he dat a t hat learners work wit h, and from which t hey
will form working hypot heses about form and funct ion, I believe t hat
learners should, even at low proficiency levels, be ex posed t o a rich
variet y of aut hent ic discourse, rat her t han t he art ificial models which
have been specially writ t en t o lay out grammat ical paradigms . Such
art ificial models misrepresent t he nat ure of language as it act ually
ex ist s, and ult imat ely make t he t ask for t he learner more difficult by
removing t he built -in redundancy t hat ex ist s in aut hent ic language . I n
7 4
HongKongjournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996
fact, in second (and even some foreign) language situations, there is
value in encouraging learners to collect and analyse their ownsamples
of authentic discourse so that in effect they become their own
ethnographers of communication (Heath, 1992) .
From the foregoing, I would suggest that in teaching grammar we
should be guided by the following pedagogical principles :
1 .

Teach grammar as choice


2 .

Provide opportunities for learners to explore grammatical and


discoursal relationships in authentic data
3 .

Teach grammar in ways that make transparent form/function


relationships
4.

Encourage learners to become active explorers of language


5 .

Encourage learners to explore relationships between grammar


and discourse
I n the rest of this section, I shall illustrate some of the ways in which
the principles might be activated. I t should be noted that the principles
themselves are not discrete, but overlap.
Teach grammar as choice
One of the reasons why it is difficult to give hard-and-fast
grammatical rules for learners to deploy is because, once grammar is
pressed into communicative service, the choice, in many instances, will
be determined by the meanings learners themselves wish to make.
Ultimately, the answer to the question "Which form should I use
here?" will be: "I t depends on the message you wish to convey . For
example, if learners wish to give equal weight to two pieces of
information and an entity, or state of affairs, then they canpresent the
information in a single sentence using co-ordination. I f the wish to
give one of these pieces of information greater weight, then they can
use subordination.
I n order to dramatise for learners the fact that alternative
grammatical realisations exist in order to enable them to make
different kinds of meanings, and that ultimately it is up to them to
7 5
decide exactly what they wish to convey, task s such as the following
can be used .
EXAMPLE
An Organic Approach to the Teaching of Grammar
"

In groups of 3 - 4 , study the following pairs of sentences and


decide whether there is any difference in meaning between the two
pairs of sentences . Are any of these sentences ungrammatical?
7 6
1 . a . In his 1 925 study, Nunan asserts that grammar and
discourse are closely link ed .
b . In his 1 925 study, Nunan asserted that grammar and
discourse are closely link ed.
2 . a . Mr. Patten, a former governor of Hong Kong was warmly
greeted in B eij ing .
b . Mr. Patten, the former governor of Hong Kong was warmly
greeted in B eij ing .
3 . a . You'll be late tonight, won't you?
b . You'll be late tonight, will you?
4 . a . For me, champagne says summer.
b . Champagne says summer, for me .
5 . a . The team are playing in Nagoya, tonight .
b . The team is playing in Nagoya, tonight .
6 . a . You should call your parents, tonight .
b . You could call your parents, tonight .
7 . a . The passive voice should be avoided in academic writing .
b . Academic writers should use the passive voice .
8 . a . I'm going to study for the exam tonight .
b . I'll study for the exam tonight .
9 . a . Alice saw a white rabbit .
b . Alice saw the white rabbit .
HongKonglournal ofApplied Linguistics Ilolumel, 1996
Provide opportunities for learners to explore grammatical and
discoursal relationships in authentic data
Authentic language shows learners how grammatical forms
operate in context to enable us to make communicative meanings .
Another advantage of using authentic data is that learners encounter
target language items ( in this case, comparative adjectives and adverbs)
in the kinds of contexts that they naturally occur, rather than in
contexts that have been concocted by a textbook writer. Ultimately,
this will assist the learner because he/she will experience the language
item in interaction with other closely related grammatical and
discoursal elements . By distorting the contexts of use within
grammatical items occur, non-authentic language in some respects
actually makes the task for the language learner more difficult . The
disparity between contrived and authentic data can be seen in the
following extracts which, themselves, have been turned into a
classroom task.
EXAMPLE
Task 1 : Study the following extracts . One is a piece of genuine
conversation, the other is taken from a language teaching textbook.
Which is which? What differences can you see between the two
extracts? What language do you think the non-authentic conversation
is trying to teach? What grammar would you need in order to take
part in the authentic conversation?
A: Excuse me, please. Doyou know where the nearest bank is?
B. Well, the City Bank isn' t farfrom here. Do you know where the main
post office is?
A: No, not really. I' m just passing through.
B. Well, first go down this street to the traffic light.
A: OK.
B: Then turn left and go west on Sunset Boulevard for about two blocks .
The bank is onyour right, just past the post office.
A: All right. Tbanks!
B: You' re welcome.
77
AnOrganic Approach t o t he Teaching ofGrammar
A: Howdo 1get t o Kensingt onRoad?
B: Well you go downFullart onRoad . . .
A: . . . what , downOldBelair, andaround . . . ?
B: Yeah. Andt henyou go st raight . . .
A: . . . past t he hospit al?
B. Yeah, keep going st raight , past t he racecourse t o t he roundabout .
You knowt he big roundabout ?
A: Yeah.
B. AndKensingt onRoad's offt o t he right .
A: What , offt he roundabout ?
B: Yeah.
A: Right .
(Nunan. 1993. )
Teach grammar in ways t hat make t ransparent form/funct ion
relat ionships
This principle can be act ivat ed by creat ing pedagogical t asks in
which learners st ruct ure and rest ruct ure t heir ownunderst anding of
form-funct ion relat ionships t hrough bot h induct ive and deduct ive
t asks of various kinds . The following t ask sequence, adapt ed from Hall
and Shepheard (1991) , illust rat es howsuch an approach might be used
t o make salient different t emporal relat ionships.
EXAMPLE
" Working wit h anot her st udent , mat ch t he uses of t he present
perfect wit h t he following sent ences by writ ing a let t er in t he
column.
A. indefinit e fut ure period

B. indefinit e past

C. definit e fut ure period


D. recent act ion

E. past -present period: unfinished


1 .

The rains have j ust brought

PAST

NOW

FUTURE
hope t o t he st arving of Africa.

. . . . . . . . . .
2 .

Giant swarms of locust s have


beenreport ed in Cape Verde .
78
X 1
HongKonglournalofApphedLinguistics Volumel, 1996
3 .

Experts whohave been in


the FAOin Mali for years were

. . . . . . . . . .
amazed by thesize of oneswarm.
4 .
5 .
Othercountries are waiting
until international meetings
have beenheld in two
months time.
Government cannot wait
until locust swarms have
eaten their crops.
Nowdraw timelines for sentences 2-5 similar to that for sentence
Complete the followingquestions .
1.

a.

The rains have j ust brought hope to the straving of Africa


b.

Therains j ust brought hope to the starving but nosolution.


Whichadverbs can replacej ust in a and b?
2 .

a.

Great swarms of locusts have beenreported in Cape Verde.


b .

Great swarms oflocusts were reported in Cape Verde.


To whichsentence canthe words twodays ago be added?
3 . a. Experts who have been with the FAO for years were
amazed.
b .

Experts whowere with theFAOfor years were amazed.


4 . a. Other countries are waiting until international meetings
have beenheld in twomonths time.
b.

Other countries are waiting until international meetings are


held in two months time.
Are these countries waiting until the
they beginin a) , in b) ?
5 . a. Other countries
have finished.
b . Other countries
finish.
True/False: There is
events .
Whichsentence emphasises the completion ofthe event?
(Adapted from Hall &Shepheard, (1991. )
meetings are over or until
are waiting until international meetings
are waiting until international meetings
no obj ective difference between the two
7 9
Encourage learners to become active explorers of language
By exploiting th is principle, teach ers can encourage th eir students
to take greater responsibility for th eir own learning. Students can
bring samples of language into class, and th ey can work togeth er to
formulate th eir own h ypoth eses about language structures and
functions . Classrooms wh ere th is principle h as been activated will be
ch aracterised by an inductive approach to learning in wh ich learners
are given access to data, and are provided with structured
opportunities to work out rules, principles and so on for th emselves .
Th e idea h ere is th at information will be more deeply processed and
stored if learners are given an opportunity to work th ings out for
th emselves, rath er th an simply being given th e principle or rule. (For
excellent, practical examples, see Woods, 1995 . )
Th e following example is taken from a unit of work in wh ich
learners h ave been involved in talking about actions in progress .
Having worked th rough a linked sequence of tasks, th ey are th en
invited to see if th ey can come up with a ` rule' for spelling progressive
forms .
EXAMPLE
An Organic Approach to th e Teach ing of Grammar
GRAMMARWORKOUT
Can you make a rule?
A. Look as th ese lists . Th en write th e rule for turning th e ` base'
form of th e verb into th e ` - ing' form .
8 0
baseform - ingform
go going
h ave h aving
be being
live living
come coming
work working
HongKongJournal ofApplied Linguistics volumel, 1996
RULE:
B. Are these rules true or false?
1 .

I f the word ends in ` o' or ` k ' , j ust add ` - ing' . But if it ends in
` e' , drop the ` e' and add ` - ing' .
2. Say the word out loud. I f you can' t hear the last letter,
throw it away and add ` - ing' .
[ Source ; Nunan. (forthcoming. )
Encourage learners to explore relationships between grammar and
discourse
The final principle activates in the classroom the notion that
grammar and discourse are inextricably interlink ed . Classroom task s
which exploit this principle will help learners to explore the
functioning of grammar in context, and help them to deploy their
developing grammatical competence in the creation of coherent
discourse.
EXAMPLE:
Paragraphs are the "building block " of written texts . When we write a
paragraph, we have to turn individual ` bits' of information
` propositions' ) into coherent, continuous prose . We use
grammatical resources of the language to do this . Consider
following ` propositions' .
"

The nursing process is a systematic method.


"

The nursing process is a rational method.


"

The method involves planning nursing care .


"

The method involves providing nursing care.


8 1
(or
the
the
AnJj:n+c Aggc:cn c n- -:cn+nj ct G:mm:
n-.- c:n c- g:c:j-i +n c : .+nj. - .-n -nc- c, ..+nj j:mm: +c:.
-.c.c-. ct :+c.. +ni.
'n- n..+nj gcc-.. +. : .,. -m: +c : +cn:. m- nci ct g. :nn+nj :ni
gc+i+nj n..+nj c:- '


!.+nj n- :cc- .-n -nc- :. n- t+. +n : g::j:gn, gci.c- :
ccn--n g::j:gn +nccgc: +nj n- tc. . c.+nj +ntcm: +cn
"

n- jc:. ct n- n..+nj gcc-.. +. c +i-n +t, : c. +-n . n-:. n
. : ..
"

n- jc:. ct n- n..+nj gcc-.. +. c +i-n +t, : c. +-n . n-:. n c:-
gcc. -m.
"

Ac. +-n . n-:. n c:- gcc. -m. m:, c- :c .:. c gc -n +:.
"

n- jc:. ct n- n..+nj gcc-.. +. c -. :c. +.n g. :n. c m-- :
c. +-n . n-:. n c:- n--i.
"

n- jc:. ct n- n..+nj gcc-.. +. c i-. +- .g-c+t+c n..+nj
+n --n +cn.
"

:..+nj +n --n +cn. :- i-.+jn-i c m-- : c. +-n . n-:. n c:-
n--i.
" n- n..- m.. cc. . :cc: - .+ n n- c. +-n c c:, c. n-
n..+nj gcc-.. -tt-c +-. ,
" n- n..- m.. cc. . :cc: - .+ n n- c. +-n c +ni++i.:. +.-
:ggc:cn-. c -:cn g-.cn. g: +c.. : n--i.
"

n- n..- m.. cc. . :cc: - .+ n c n- m-mc-. ct n- n-:. n c:-
-:m c c:, c. n- n..+nj gcc-.. -tt-c +-. ,
"

n- n..- m.. cc. . :cc: - .+ n c n- m-mc-. ct n- n-:. n c:-
-:m c +ni++i.:. +.- :ggc:cn-. c -:cn g-.cn. g: +c.. : n--i.
` cmg:- ,c. -. .+ n :nc n- . .i-n H:- : nc - ct
.+m+. :+ +-. :ni i+tt--nc-.


:c. -+.- ,c. -. :ni ccmg:- + .+ n n- c+j+n:. ,..gg. +-i
.-g:: -. ,
Ai:g -i tcm :.n:n, ;;
`
HongKongjournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996
Conclusion
in th is paper, I h ave made a case for developing an alternative to
th e `building block' metaph or th at h as dominated language pedagogy
for many years . Th is metaph or is based on th e assumption th at
learning is a linear process and th at grammatical knowledge is built up
in th e learner in much th e same way as a building is constructed, th at
is, th at grammatical competence is acquired one grammatical `brick' at
a time. However, it is now abundantly clear from SLA research th at
language is not acquired like th is at all. Learners do not learn one
grammatical feature perfectly, one at a time, rath er, th ey learn
numerous features imperfectly at th e same time. Acquisition is
ch aracterised by backsliding and plateaux, as well as by progressions .
I n oth er words, it is an inh erently `unstable', organic process in wh ich
th e learners' appos-developing interlanguage progresses th rough
sequences of metamorph oses (Ruth erford, 1987) .
I n th e second part of th e paper, I argued th at classrooms
underpinned by th e functional, organic view of grammatical
development described in th e body of th e paper will be ch aracterised
by th e following features :
"

learners will be exposed to auth entic samples of language so th at


th e grammatical features in question will be experienced in a range
of different linguistic and experiential contexts
"

it will not be assumed th at once learners h ave been drilled in a


particular form th ey will h ave acquired it
"

th ere will be opportunities for recycling of language forms, and


learners will be engaged in tasks designed to make transparent th e
inextricable links betweenform and function
" learners will be given opportunities to develop th eir own
understandings of th e grammatical principles of English by
progressively structuring and restructuring th e language th rough
inductive learning experiences
"

over time, learners will encounter target language items in an


increasingly diverse and complex range of linguistic and
experiential environments .
I n applying th is view of language to pedagogy, we need to
acknowledge th at words and sentences alone are not sufficient to
enable us to communicate effectively with oth ers . Particularly in inter-
83
An Organic Approach t o t he Te aching of Grammar
cu l t u ral and mu l t i- l ingu is t ic e ncou nt e rs t he re is al s o a ne e d for
pragmat ic goodwil l , for wit hou t s u ch goodwil l t he re is a dange r t hat
s pe ake rs wil l fail t o make t he commu nicat ive e ffort t o u nde rs t and t he
fu nct ional int e nt ions t hat l ie be hind individu al words and u t t e rance s .
In t he final anal y s is , it is in t he int e rpre t at ion of fu nct ional int e nt ion,
not in t he int e rrogat ion of is ol at e d l ingu is t ic e l e me nt s , t hat ge nu ine
commu nicat ion l ie s . In t he words of one l ingu is t ,
Langu age is s u re l y as compl e x a phe nome non as hu mans
have e ve r want e d t o u nde rs t and, and s o far we have n't e ve n
come cl os e . We have be e n re t arde d in t his pu rs u it by what
s e e ms t o be a s chol arl y drive t o cont ract , rat he r t han t o
e xpand, t he fie l d of vis ion. . . . As s oon as one l ooks be y ond
s e nt e nce s one finds one s e l f force d t o s t op de al ing wit h
art ificial dat a concoct e d t o s u it one 's pu rpos e s , and t o l ook
ins t e ad at l angu age in u s e . (Chafe 1990 : 2 1)
In re l at ion t o l angu age s t andards , whe n we l ook be y ond s e nt e nce s in
is ol at ion t o l angu age in u s e , t he crit ical qu e s t ion is not : "Have t he y got
t he ir words in t he right orde r? ", bu t "Have t he y got t he l ingu is t ic
re s ou rce s t o commu nicat e e ffe ct ive l y in t he compl e x worl d be y ond t he
cl as s room, be y ond t he l e ct u re t he at re and be y ond t he t u t orial room? "
Onl y t he n, might pe dagogie s e me rge t hat acknowl e dge t he fact t hat
l angu age is s u re l y as compl e x a phe nome non as hu mans have e ve r
want e d t o u nde rs t and .
Re fe re nce s
Cart e r, R. (1993 . ) Int rodu cing Appl ie d Lingu is t ics . London: Pe ngu in.
Ce l ce - Mu rcia, M . and E. Ol s ht ain. (fort hcoming) Dis cou rs e as a
Frame work for Langu age Te aching . Oxford : Oxford Unive rs it y
Pre s s .
Chafe , W. (1990 . ) Looking ahe ad, Te xt , 10, 19 - 2 2 .
Gronl u nd, N. (1981 . ) Me as u re me nt and Eval u at ion in Te aching . Ne w
York : Macmil l an.
8 4
HongKongJournal ofAppliedLinguistics Volumel, 1996
Hall N. &Shepheard J . , . (1991 . ) The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book.
Longman. ]
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985 . ) An Introduction to Functional Grammar.
London: Arnold.
Harris, Z. (1952 . ) Discourse analysis, Language, 28, (4 ) . 4 74 -4 94 .
Heath, S . B . (1992 . ) Literacy skills or literate skills? Considerations for
ESL / EFL learners . In D . Nunan (ed. ) Collaborative Language
Learningand Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
Johnston, M. (1987 . ) Understanding learner language. In D . Nunan
(ed. ) Applying Second Language Acquisition Research. Adelaide:
NCRC .
Kellerman, E. (1983 . ) If at first you do succeed . . . In S . Gass and C .
Madden (eds . ) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley,
Mass. : Newbury House.
Labov, W. (1975 . ) What is a linguistic fact?

Lisse, The Netherlands :


Peter de Ridder.
Langunoff, R . (1992 . ) A description of they as a singular pronoun.
Unpublished MA thesis in TESL, UCLA, Department of TESL
and Applied Linguistics . Cited in Celce-Murcia and Olshtain
(forthcoming) .
Larsen-Freeman, D . and M. Long. (1991. ) An Introduction to Second
Language Acquisition Research . London: Longman.
Levinson, S . (1983 . ) Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McCarthy . M. (1991 . ) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
Nunan, D . (1993 . ) IntroducingDiscourse Analysis. London: Penguin.
8 5
AnOrganic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar
Nunan, D. (1995. ) ATLAS Learning-Centered Communication.
Boston: Heinle &Heinle .
Nunan, D. (1996. forthcoming) High Five! Boston: Heinle &Heinle .
Nunan, D. (1996. ) Academic Writing for Nursing Students . The
English Centre, University of Hong Kong
Odlin, T. (1994. ) The introspective hierarchy : a comparison of the
intuitions of linguists, teachers, and learners . In T . Odlin (ed . )
Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press .
Pica, T. (1985. ) The selective impact of classroom instruction on
second language acq uisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 3, 214 - 222.
Pienemann, M. and M. Johnston. (1987. )

Factors influencing the


development of language proficiency . In D. Nunan (Ed . ) Applying
Second Language Acq uisition Research. Adelaide : NCRC.
Ross, J . (1979. ) Where's English? In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W.
Wang (Eds . ) Individual Differences in Language Ability and
Language Behavior. NewYork: Academic Press .
Schmidt, R. and C. McCreary . (1977. ) Standard and superstandard
English: recognition and use of prescriptive rules by native and
non-native speakers . TESOLQuarterly, 11, 271-288.
Rutherford, W, (1987. ) Second Language Grammar. Teaching and
Learning. London: Longman.
Woods, E . (1995. ) Introducing Grammar. London: Penguin.
86

Você também pode gostar