Revisiting the Communicative Approach: The Tripod Construct

Hayat Al-Khatib

English Department, Faculty of Language Studies

Arab Open University, Lebanon
Arguments provided that what may work in native contexts may not have the same impact in non-native
learning contexts (Lakhwe 2016, Ghadi, Biddou and Boukanouf 2016). This case study seeks to identify the
main tenets of the Communicative Approach in non-native contexts, and to recommend essential components to
its application.

Introduction
In the past thirty years, perspectives on successful language learning promoted a shift away from the long
established grammar curriculum and traditional classroom practice, towards teaching for communication and
communicative competence. Ellis (2016) addressed a number of criticisms that have been leveled on the focus
on form (FoF) approach. Mastering grammar forms and structures was not perceived to prepare the learners
well enough to use the language they are learning to communicate effectively with others (Ellis, 2016). In
addition, traditional ways of language teaching reduced the process of language learning to an awareness of
grammar labels and limited lexical assemblage.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on Form: A critical review. In Language Teaching Research 11.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294106003_Focus_on_form_A_critical_review
In earlier literature, Segalowitz (1976) reported that second language learners who have achieved a fairly high
level of grammatical competence in the language through grammatically organized classroom training remain
unable to communicate with fluency and ease in sociolinguistic and cultural settings.

Citation
Segalowitz, N. (1976). Communicative incompetence and the non-fluent bilingual. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 8(2), 122-131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0081941

However, as the study of grammar became marginalized, pupils started to find it increasingly difficult to
develop attentiveness on how language works (Lakhwe, 2012). Moreover, according to Selinker (2006), Swain
(2013) and Swain and Brooks (2014),certain grammatical inaccuracies were fossilizesince grammatical
accuracy was not emphasized. Studies reported that students in Communicative Language Teaching classes
developed classroom interlanguage; a language system that may satisfy basic communicative needs in the
classroom but does not correspond entirely to the language systems used by native speakers of the foreign
language(Selinker2006, Swain2013 and Swain and Brooks 2014).

Hymes (1972) rejected the strong version of linguistic competence that Chomsky
(1965) adoptedand proposed a theory of competence that includes the language user’s knowledge and ability to
use rules of language in context. Hymes (1972) asserted that, “there are rules of use without which the rules of
grammar would be useless”(p. 278). In their evaluation, Campbell and Wales (1970) argued that, “by far the
most important linguistic ability is that of being able to produce or understand utterances which are not so much
grammatical but more important, appropriate to the context in which they are made” (p.247).

1
Upshur (1969) argued that grammatical competence is not a good predictor of
communicative competence. In their research, Upshur and Palmer (1974) argued against teaching grammar,
suggesting that to focus on grammatical competence in the classroom is not a sufficient condition for the
development of communicative competence. Larsen-Freeman (2007) concurs, “gone are the days when English
teachers made students parrot the rules of the language and use them in making sentences either in speech or in
writing”.

Recently, the teachers of English have begun to involve their pupils in grammaring rather than explicit grammar
teaching (Enos, 2010; Akakura, 2012). Grammaring has been proposed to include the procedural knowledge in
using language rather than the declarative knowledge of its systems. Demonstrating knowledge of grammar
rules within a communicative context started to reclaim interest within the EFL teaching context.

On opinion whether the grammar or the communicative approach served better the learners’ needs in EFL
contexts, 9 tutors out of the 45 English tutors surveyed replied that they prefer to separate grammar instruction
to make English language rules clearer to their students. They perceived that knowledge of grammar rules is
crucial in order to help students express themselves accurately in spoken and written communication. In their
sessions, grammar instruction included labeling lexical categories, introducing rules of syntax and morphology,
drilling sentence grammar as well as semantics and phonologic exercises. According to these tutors, grammar
competence is a crucial component in any teaching and learning approach to English in a non-native context, to
compensate for the limited opportunities of practice. Tutors underlined that at the beginner level, a foreign
language learner will most likely be unable to devote much attention to the task of how to use language until he
or she has mastered some of the grammatical forms that need to be used. Therefore, it is important to adopt the
position that foreign language learning will proceed more effectively, when
grammatical usage is not abstracted from meaningful context.

Tutors explained that they needed to emphasize grammar rules because of the limited opportunities of
practicing the taught language would not allow the students to notice the rules from communicative exchanges
only.

Can we teach language in a ELL contexts without teaching grammar?

Conclusion
In ELL contexts, learners do not have enough exposure to hypothesize and test language rules; hence the
communicative approach may not work on its own.Mangubhai, Marland, Dashwood and Son (2005) advocate
that teachers integrate into communicative approaches additional features not normally mentioned in second
language literature. Lam (2015, p.293) proposed that, “salient issues emerging from the analysis of literature
include advocacy of an eclectic approach”.
From what has preceded, grammaring or the procedural knowledge of using grammar in context, needs to
become an essential component of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and replace the declarative
approach to grammar in EFL. Grammaring needs to be integrated in classroom communication, as a process
that reflects the three major components of the tripod model of CLT.

2
The Current Practices of Teaching Grammar in CLT at Secondary School Level in Bangladesh: Problems and
Probable Solutions
Sofe Ahmed Adjunct Faculty of English, Leading University, Bangladesh

To all Methodists, learning or mastering a language means a balance combination of both accuracy and
fluency; linguistic as well as communicative competence. Pioneer of CLT don‟t differ with this view. What is
different to their new method is the technique of teaching the rules of grammar, but they acknowledge the
significance or role of grammar and emphasis on developing this skill.

II. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

To attain the research goals, this study basically uses secondary sources of data. The proposed study emphasizes
on the analysis of the studies conducted on the practices of CLT at secondary schools located in Sylhet division
particularly. With regards to its conceptual framework, the study views how teaching and learning of English
are actually happening in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) classroom in Bangladesh. The secondary
sources of data comprise the individual research findings, and publications, also conducted in wide area of CLT
in Bangladesh as well as in global context.
A Brief Historical Background of ELT in Bangladesh

A sketch of ELT Institutions and methodologies

There are both public as well private institutions, involved in teaching English in Bangladesh from primary to
higher level. Public institutions are more backdated particularly which are located in rural area. The students of
those institutions study English aiming at passing the examination other than achieving linguistic competence.
Whereas, private institutes are more advanced and updated in case of dynamism in teaching English. Their
students have better perspectives in case of higher study and work in home as well as abroad. Nonetheless,
along with these bodies of education there are also private coaching centers that have individual methods to
English. These institutes also play remarkable roles in the field enhancing teaching and learning English.
communicative language teaching.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
Communicative Language Teaching or CLT began its journey with the slogan of emphasizing on the learners‟
communicative competence as opposed to linguistic competence. It claims to be something more than
grammatical teaching. In other words, CLT is the method that is concerned with learners‟ needs of
communication. Its teaching techniques reflect the choice of language content and materials, with emphasis on
role play, pair and group work etc. The method suggests that the learners need to understand as well as express
rather than merely describe the core of language by grammatical interpretations and vocabulary. But the role
grammar is never ignored while putting emphasis on communicative function of language.
Role of Grammar in CLT
However, the principles of CLT in terms of grammar never tells to ignore grammar, but they suggest only
different techniques or methods of practicing it; they turns from deductive to inductive way of teaching
grammar-rules. Hence, there is no controversy regarding the significant role of grammar in CLT, it is therefore
should be a core concern of research in the field of CLT for the apt implementation of the principles of CLT by
analyzing the existing problems in terms of the practices of grammar in CLT class rooms and find out effective
solutions.

3
TEACHING COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR
AT THE DISCOURSE LEVEL
Osear Rojas C.
University of Heredia
Costa Rica

Communicative grammar is based on the communicative approach to the teaching of second/foreign languages.
Language structures must not be taught in isolation but integrated to the four skills of language: listening,
speaking, reading and writing. In this way, a structure is practiced orally and In wrltten form. Grammatical
patters must not only be learned at the utterance level but at the discourse level; the main objective focuses on
the development of communicative grammatical competence, which is understood as the ablllty to use and
understand a structure in a variety of situations spontaneously. The approach calis for a certaln balance between
pre-communicative and communicative activities: the first prepare the learner to handle the language rules for
actual communication and the latter enable him to use the structures in real communication.
Regarding the teaching of grammar, what has been done lately in second/foreign language classes is a
presentation of grammatical patterns, followed by some drilling and structural exercises with little or no
Communicative application of those patterns in context. There are other important elements that contribute to
the establishment of a communicative act. They are classified as functions
(intention or purpose), notions (of place, time, space, dimension, etc.), as well as the topic, the situation, the
communicative and the Interactive aspect. Thus, functions or illocutionary acts, imply a communicative
purpose, "what people want to do or what they want to accomplish through speech" (Finocchiaro, p.13).
Notions are "meaning elements which may be expressed through nouns, pronouns, verbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, adjectives, or adverbs" (Finocchiaro, p.14), what Wiikins has called "semantico-grammatical
categories" (Johnson, p.35). These categories are abstract concepts that are generally realized linguistically
(for example, the notion of location is manifested in prepositions: "besides", "in front of", "on the right", etc).
The other aspects provide the social framework where participants of a communicative act interact

There are other important elements that contribute to the establishment of a communicative act. They are
classified as functions (intention or purpose), notions (of place, time, space, dimensión, etc.), as
well as the topic, the situation, the communicative and the Interactive aspect. Thus, functions or illocutionary
acts, imply a communicative purpose, "what people want to do or what they want to accomplish through
speech" (Finocchiaro, p.13). Notions are "meaning elements which may be expressed through nouns, pronouns,
verbs, prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives, or adverbs" (Finocchiaro, p.14), what Wiikins has
called "semantico-grammatical categories" (Johnson, p.35). These categories are abstract concepts that are
generally realized linguistically (for example, the notion of location is manifested in prepositions:
"besides", "in front of", "on the right", etc). The other aspects provide the social framework where participants
of a communicative act interact.
"Grammatlcal form is taught not as an end itself, but as a means of carrying out communicative intent"
(Salimbene, p.50).
Besides, we must prevent language from becoming a subject of theoretical study: language is acquired only
through constant conversational practice in situations similar to real life.

When
doing this, tliey have to think of tiie target language as a veliicle for communication, not just the object of study
(Larsen-Freeman, p.128).

4
When referring to the way language is learned, we need to understand
how linguistic knowledge originates in the mind. According to Clark and Clark
(p.259), storage of language is achieved by the integration of two important
parts of the brain: the word-storage stage and the conceptual stage. In the first stage, forms of words
(pronunciation, stress, definitions, gender, number of syllables, letters or phonemes, etc.) are stored; while in the
latter, concepts and images of words are conformed. Concepts are conceived when individuáis interact in
situations similar to those in real Ufe. A situation, with the use of authentic relia if possible, is called for so that
the images and the concepts of vocabulary, structures and the situations themselves are built up in the mind
while leamers use the language with a communicative purpose. That is why it is very important not to learn
words by memory because memorization only reaches the first stage, which refers to the theoretical aspects of
language. Learning from practicing items and structures in context with communicative intention is what helps
intégrate these two stages in the mind.

To ensure learning of particular grammar or vocabulary, learning activities should provide opportunities that
enable the student to get grammatical patterns or words to connect these two stages. If he reaches only one,
learning is not achieved because there is not enough retention of language. Thus, these activities must let
learners find strategies to unify these two stages. Similarly, in communicative teaching, time must be provided
for what Keith Johnson has called "Incubation Process" (Johnson, p.138). When language learners are in contact
with a grammatical pattern or vocabulary item, there is a certain period of time so that they can process it or
integrate it into their memory. This takes some time; obviously that process cannot be carried out with only one
contact. According to Janice Yaiden (p.26), an element is retained in the mind if it is practíced during a certain
period of time and in different contexts.
Thus learning'activities must account for this process of language incubation. They have to provide students
with opportunities to assimilate structures and vocabulary through constant practice in context. The more
contact students have with a particular item the better learning, or incubation, is achieved.

Simulated or simplified material may be either similar to authentic discourse or too elaborated and unnatural. It
can be recognized for the adaptations to present particular grammar, syntax, and vocabulary in such a
way that, often, these aspects are repeated so many times that the text sounds or appears unnatural. This is
mainly done to introduce linguistic forms in a dialogue or reading in order to increase the students' contact with
those patterns as much as possible. Many textbook writers do this type of adaptation because an unmodified
authentic piece of language does not present a varied range of uses of a particular grammatical pattern or
vocabulary item; instead, it shows a great variety of grammatical and lexical items in a random way. On the
contrary, the focus of a genuine text is on the content of the written piece or the speakers'intentíon, not on
particular structural aspects of language. A natural piece of language may contain one or two linguistic patterns
of the same kind. Sometimes depending on the natura of the discourse, it may have more, but too many may
make it unnatural.
PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS
1 Theoretical explanations can be given in class so that the students do the pre-communicative practice at home.
These activities generally take too much class time that otherwise can be devoted to communicative activities
that develop the communicative ability. Explanations should not take longer than the time assigned for the pre-
communicative and communicative activities. For example, in a fifty-minute class, ten minutes can be devoted
to theory and the rest to the application of that theory in communicative activities.
2 The teacher can make use of songs, readings, dialogues, tapes, videos, newspapers, magazines, and any other
type of oral or written authentic material to introduce the structures.
3 The activities must be planned in a way that the matehal and the activity respond to the structures that are
being introduced. The nature of precommunicative activities allows a better integration of the grammatícal
pattern; however planning communicative activities is a more complex process. For the latter an appropriate
situation and a context must be selected so that they contain the structures under study. They also have to
include a communicative function in order to meet the requirements of communicative teaching. For instance,
5
to develop the function for advising, the modals should and must can be used. Or, for carrying out the function
for expressing wishes and desires the conditional / wish I could... can be introduced. Also, for the function of
getting things done causative verba such as make, letor have can be used.
4 Some of the activities recommended are writing compositions, dialogues, reports and summaries of different
articles, news, daily events in which the students can use of the structures under study. It is very important that
they do some of these activities in order to monitor how well they are using the structures.
8 The development of a particular grammatical pattern must include a balance
between communicative and pre-communicative activities. Explaining the
theory about usage of a certain structure, practice that structure through precommunicative
activities and then use in one or two communicative activities is
not enough to internalize it. The grammatical pattern must be introduced with a
dialogue, tape, reading, etc. followed by a brief explanation, only if necessary.
After that, some pre-communicative activities are introduced so that the
students learn how to manipúlate it for later on to use it in more communicative
activities, in discourse with real contexts.
9 The grammatical patterns must be developed and evaluated in the written
as well as the oral part. The evaluation must resemble the activities that
have been used in class. Since the four skills of language are used to
practice structures in class, the examinations must also include this type of
skills. The grammatical contents of the course must not have to be
exclusively evaluated through written tests; they have to be evaluated in
oral exams as well.

6
 The Role of Grammar Instruction in a Communicative ApproachAuthor(s): Tracy David Terrell Source: The
Modern Language Journal, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 52-63Published by: Blackwell Publishing on
behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language TeachersAssociationsStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/329834Accessed: 05/11/2010 20:10Your

INPUT AND ACQUISITION THE DOMINANT MODEL FOR SECOND LAN-guage instruction in the
United States in the seventies and early eighties has been described as a "cognitive" approach. The
theoretical model that underlies the approach is that a lan-guage consists of a "set of rules" with an asso-
ciated lexicon. It follows logically from the model that foreign language students must learn rules of
grammar. The suggested se-quence is: study a rule (usually with instructor explanation), practice a rule
(in grammar exer-cises), and then apply the rule in meaningful interactions in the target language.
Krashen (13) has proposed a model of second language acquisition in which the processing of input,
rather than grammar instruction, plays the pivotal role. His hypothesis is that acquisition occurs when
learners process input in a low anxiety context. Learners presumably make use of a mental language
acquisition device that allows them to store and produce utterances in the target language. Krashen

The input must be compre-hensible and in addition be at an "i + 1" level, that is, slightly more complex
than the learner's current level of knowledge. An explicit knowl-edge of grammar by adults is said to be
useful in only one way --as a "monitor" for self-cor-rection under certain circumstances, to wit, that the
learner "know the rule" to be applied, that the learner be focused on correctness, and that the learner
have time to think about apply-ing the rule to the output. Krashen has also suggested that grammar
study may lower the affective filter for some adults and indirectly contribute to the acquisition process.

GRAMMAR AND METHODOLOGY I use the term "explicit grammar instruction" (EGI) somewhat
loosely to mean the use of instructional strategies to draw the students' attention to or focus on form
and/or structure. The role of EGI in a second/foreign language class in the United States has changed
drasti-cally in the last forty years--as the favored methodology changed from grammar-transla-tion to
audio-lingual, then from audio-lingual to cognitive, and finally from cognitive to communicative
approaches. The grammar-translation approach concen-trated on grammar skills, in particular the
ability to use grammatical terminology to describe the various morphological and syntac-tic principles of
the target language. With the advent of audio-lingualism, instructors were not supposed to spend a great
deal of time talk-ing directly about target language grammar rules. The oral input available to the
students in the form of dialogues and pattern drills, how-ever, was highly structured, following a strictly
ordered grammatical syllabus; and, in fact, most of the students' time in an audio-lingual course was
spent drilling grammatical forms and structures. Proponents of the "cognitive approach" stressed that
students should under-stand the rules for using target language forms and structures before they
attempted to use them for communication.' With the advent of the popularity of various communicative
approaches, especially in ESL classes in this country and also in foreign lan-guage classes in Europe
based on a notional-functional syllabus, the predominant role of grammar as the organizing principle in
a lan-guage class has been called into question. In most communicative approaches direct and explicit
grammar instruction has been accorded a somewhat peripheral position in the total course design. The
central position of com-municative (or at least meaningful) activities in the class is supported by research
such as that reported in Bialystok, who found that "func-tional practice facilitated performance on all
four tasks examined. . .

The disfavor of a heavy grammar focus in the class is at least partially due to the influ-ence
among language instructors of Krashen's "monitor" hypothesis, which posits that the role of explicit
grammar knowledge is limited to that of a "monitor," or editor, which some speakers are able to use in
writing or prepared speech, but which is not very useful in ordinary con-. versation. According to
7
Krashen, current second language acquisition research supports the notion that an explicit knowledge of how
forms and structures function in the target lan-guage is neither a necessary nor sufficient con-dition for their
"acquisition." In a similar vein, Garrett (p. 133) takes note of the following apparent paradox: "grammatical
competence must be an integral part of communicative competence, but learning grammar does not seem to
help students achieve either." In his insightful review of The Natural Ap-proach, Krahnke (p. 598) suggests that
"much of the effort spent arguing against the teaching of grammar might be better spent on convinc-ing true
believers in grammar instruction that grammar has a newly defined but useful role to play in language teaching
and in showing them what it is."
This same question has been for-malized as the Pedagogical Grammar Hypothesis (28; rpt. 29: p. 109):
"Instructional strategies which draw the attention of the learner to spe-cifically structural regularities of the
language as distinct from the message content, will under certain conditions significantly increase the rate of
acquisition over and above the rate expected from learners acquiring that language under natural circumstances
where attention to form may be minimal and sporadic."

RESEARCH EVIDENCE The research literature has focused on five major areas (19): 1) does formal
classroom instruction help in the acquisition process? 2) what effect does grammar instruction have on
fluency/accuracy? 3) what effect does grammar instruction have on the rate of acquisition? 4) what effect does
grammar instruction have on the order of acquisition of grammatical mor-phemes and structures? 5) what effect
does grammar instruction have on ultimate attain-ment in second language acquisition? Effects of Language
Instruction. The first Strong evidence exists that the ability to demonstrate grammatical knowledge on a dis-
crete-point grammar exam does not guarantee the ability to use that knowledge in ordinary conversation, be it
spontaneous or monitored. In one illustrative study (35), Terrell, Baycroft, and Perrone showed that in spite of
concen-trated instruction on the forms and uses of the Spanish subjunctive, first-year university stu-dents were
unable to use the mood correctly in free conversation. Although correctness levels on a written test averaged
above ninety per-cent, students only rarely surpassed ten percent accuracy levels in conversation. Not only were
students not able to use the subjunctive in spon-taneous conversation, apparently they were also not able to
monitor their speech with the grammatical information they had learned.

Let us assume that in the foreign language class there will be provision for comprehensible input and
meaningful interactional activities. Several important questions arise concerning the relationship
between the rate of acquisition and EGI that we do not yet have answers for: 1) does EGI speed up the
acquisition of gram-matical forms and structures at all? 2) what kinds of EGI are helpful in increasing
the rate of acquisition? 3) which forms and structures are aided by EGI? 4) which sorts of students are
aided by EGI? Order. The research evidence from many sources supports Krashen's contention that EGI
is not a major factor in the order of acquisition of grammatical forms or structures.2 One of the clearest
research findings is that "learners of a given second language (apparently regardless of the first
language) tend to pass through cer-tain transitional states of grammatical compe-tence" and that this
path appears to be relatively unaffected by EGI (37). In one pertinent for-eign language acquisition
study, VanPatten (36; 38) found that learners of Spanish pass through five stages in the acquisition of the
ser/estar copula contrast and that the five stages did not match the instructional sequence used by the
instructor. In a follow-up study, VanPatten (39) looked at the acquisition of clitic pronouns, asking: ". ..
does the order of emer-gence (or, better, the accuracy scores) reflect instructional sequence?" As in
previous studies, the answer was clearly negative: direct object clitics were the first studied and the last to
be acquired. He concludes: "Like the data from ESL, then, instructional sequence and presen-tation is
not a good predictor of accuracy or emergence of form in spontaneous, conversa-tional speech." Long's
view, which coincides with Krashen's, is that "acquisitional sequences may well be immutable" (19: p.
125). In his review of the research literature, Long speculates that al-though certain studies might superficially
appear to show an alteration of acquisitional sequences, such changes are probably tempo-rary tempo-rary. The
position that the order of acquisition of morphology and syntax is pretty much unaf-fected by grammar
instruction is also supported by Pienemann's work with Italian children learning German as a second language.
8
The learner's morphological development is seen in this framework as a continuous process: new forms are
processed from the input and stored along with their connections to other related forms. At first, the
communicative demands made on learners will exceed the quantity of items stored, and they will be forced to
produce many new forms by a process of analogy to known items. This analogical process of generation is not
perfect, since the connections themselves may be both imperfect and tenuous and the network itself too simple.
Thus overgeneralizations and various sorts of regularization and "irregularization" may occur.
the follow-ing steps are essential: learners must process the input in such a way that they: 1) isolate the form; 2)
ascertain its meaning; and 3) establish various sorts of associations between the two. The next section examines
how EGI might con-tribute to this binding process..
the follow-ing steps are essential: learners must process the input in such a way that they: 1) isolate the form; 2)
ascertain its meaning; and 3) establish various sorts of associations between the two. The next section examines
how EGI might con-tribute to this binding process.
An interventionist approach would argue that given the low number of input/interaction hours in typical
foreign language college (70-150 hours) or high school (100-300 hours) instruction, EGI can serve to
speed up parts of the acquisition process. As an example, let us use Spanish as the target language of
speak-ers of English.
In the following sections I propose that EGI can affect the acquisition process in three dif-ferent ways: 1)
as an "advance organizer" to aid in comprehending and segmenting the input;5 2) as a meaning-form
focuser that aids the learner in establishing a meaning-form relation-ship for morphologically complex
forms; and 3) by providing forms for monitoring, which, in turn, will be available for acquisition in the
output. Advance Organizers. The idea of an advance organizer is to give learners information about
target language forms and structures that will aid in processing the input. An advance or-ganizer for
grammar can provide comprehen-sion strategies that highlight key grammatical elements learners
should attend to (or con-versely ignore). Initial encounters with a new language pro-duce a great deal of
anxiety and tension. Trying to make sense of input in the target language is difficult, especially when the
learners know little or nothing about the target language and culture. Careful manipulation of the input
coupled with the use of appropriate gestures and visuals can help the learner identify indi-vidual words
in the input utterances. But often, even in the case of simplified input, the learner is only able to grasp the
main ideas, without being able to segment the utterance and begin the binding of meahings to specific
forms. A reasonable hypothesis is that any information about how the input is organized might aid the
learner in this segmentation process. The question, viewed in this way, becomes: "What sort of
information about the target lan-guage would be useful to the learner in seg-menting the input?" The
exact presentation and wording of an advance organizer will of course depend on the grammatical level
and sophisti-cation of the students. The following advance organizers have been written for college-level
students who have some measure of grammar background.
Here is a possible sequence of activities for the Spanish present tense. * I am going to describe to you a
typical Sunday in my life. Notice that all the verbs I will use end in -o. Spanish uses this ending on verbs
to refer to the speaker: "I." Sample input: Los domingos me levanto mds tarde, a veces a las diez, y a
veces a las once. Luego, desayuno cereal.C asi siempreh ablop or telefonoa mi hermano, Pablo. En la
tarde salgo con algtin amigo a pasear. (Sundays I get up later, sometimes at ten and at times even at
eleven. Then I have cereal for breakfast. I almost always call my brother, Paul, on the phone. In the after-
noon, I go out for a walk with a friend.) This narrative can be continued with fifteen to twenty utterances,
all of which contain a verb form ending in -o. * Describe your brother/sister's daily activities: Mi
hermanoJ orge trabaja en un restaurantec erca de nuestra casa. Entra al trabajo a las cuatro de la tardey
sale a la una de la maniana. (My brother Jorge works at a restaurant near our house. He starts work at
four in the afternoon and leaves at one in the morning.) As you talk, write the predicate phrases on the
board to draw students' attention to the third person singular forms. Instruct the students to ask you
questions to see how closely your own schedule matches your brother's/sister's. If they use usted (formal
you), the verb forms will be identical to those on the board. Ask them to notice that the verbs used in
your replies all end in -o.
9
Does this concentration of many examples of a single meaning-form relationship in one activity result in the
students being able to focus on meaning and form at the same time? My informal impressions from teaching
and observ-ing Spanish classes are positive VanPatten (37), for example, has shown that students do not
find it easy to attend to both meaning and form in the input. In his experiment, students of Spanish were
asked to attend to all verbs with plural endings. The quantitative results as well as students' informal
comments both lead to the conclusion that it is difficult to process meaning and attend to grammatical
markers at the same time. However, his conclusion is suggestive of a remedy. He speculates that learners
can only attend to grammatical markers when the major lexical items in the input are familiar and
require little process time. The relevant ques-tion then appears to be: when (and under what conditions)
can learners process grammatical markers in the input? My suggestion is that in a grammatically focused
input activity the lexical load be relatively light, i.e., following VanPatten's suggestion that the student not
have to expend much process time in general meaning-form access. This light lexical load coupled with
the high frequency of a single meaning-form relationship could result in time to process the meaning of
the grammatical form or structure in focus.

Monitoring/Acquisitiono f Output.T he only role Krashen (12) posits for EGI is to provide infor-mation
about grammatical relationships that can then be used by the "monitor." He suggests that students might
be encouraged to use the monitor to improve the accuracy of speech as long as its use does not interfere
with communi-cation. Monitoring, as Krashen points out, is quite difficult to do in normal conversation,
even under the most favorable circumstances. On the other hand, in my experience, virtually all
beginning students report that they attempt to monitor their speech in a classroom context. (I do not
know whether their attempts to moni-tor are more often successful or unsuccessful.) To date we have very
little information on the possible effects of monitoring.

10
 Cortés Moreno, M. (2005). “¿Hay que enseñar gramática a los estudiantes de una lengua extranjera?”, CAUCE,
Revista Internacional de Filología y su Didáctica, 28: 89-108. Universidad de Sevilla, España. Disponible en la
Red:
http://203.68.184.6:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/798

Tradicionalmente, la gramática y su enseñanza / aprendizaje vienen ocupando un puesto de honor en las aulas
de lengua extranjera. Este artículo tiene por objeto invitar a la reflexión en torno a cuestiones como las
siguientes: ¿tenemos que enseñar gramática a todos nuestros alumnos?, ¿por qué?, ¿para qué?, ¿cuándo?,
¿cómo? A nuestro juicio, existen tantas respuestas válidas como situaciones de enseñanza / aprendizaje
distintas. Por ello, proponemos analizar las necesidades gramaticales concretas en cada situación: ¿Precisan
nuestros alumnos un conocimiento declarativo o un conocimiento instrumental de la gramática? ¿o ambos?, ¿se
puede aprender la gramática de la lengua extranjera sin estudiarla?, etc.

2. ¿Qué entendemos por enseñar gramática?

A quienes nos apasiona el estudio de la gramática nos resulta fácil comprender que nuestros alumnos también
sientan curiosidad, o incluso necesidad, por saber qué estructuras, reglas gramaticales, etc. subyacen tras
determinados usos de la lengua. Asimismo, comprendemos que nuestros colegas sientan el deseo de compartir
con sus alumnos los secretos gramaticales que ellos aprendieron mediante el estudio o bien descubrieron
mediante la reflexión.
Antes de intentar responder a la cuestión planteada en el título de este artículo, es imprescindible precisar qué
entendemos por gramática o, cuando menos, distinguir entre algunas acepciones bien diferenciadas del término
gramática; para nuestro propósito aquí, bastará con distinguir entre dos de ellas (Cortés Moreno, 2000: 105-6):
Listado de normas que elabora el gramático o el profesor, con el fin de enseñar la lengua en cuestión; es lo
que denominamos conocimiento declarativo. Tanto en el caso de la lengua natal (L1) como en el de la LE, suele
adquirirse a través de un aprendizaje formal.

Sistema interiorizado que permite codificar y descodificar discurso oral o escrito en una lengua; es lo que
denominamos conocimiento instrumental. La base para su adquisición es la interacción oral o escrita con otros
usuarios de la lengua en situaciones de comunicación.

GRAMÁTICA PEDAGÓGICA DESCRIPCIÓN Y REGLAS DE USO COMPETENCIA COMUNICATIVA

Por otro lado, en los libros de texto y de actividades aparecen abundantes ejercicios gramaticales, cuyas
soluciones (respuestas, clave, etc.) suelen figurar en el libro del profesor. Es fácil que éste se sienta más seguro
con este tipo de actividades que improvisando en la LE.
Al margen de los argumentos anteriores, existen un buen número de factores que nos inducen a enseñar
gramática, sea cual sea nuestro criterio personal: los alumnos, los colegas de Departamento, la Dirección del
centro docente, el plan de estudios del Ministerio de Educación, etc., todos ellos condicionados por la larga
tradición de la enseñanza de la gramática. En efecto, a lo largo de la historia, la gramática siempre ha gozado
de un puesto de honor.
Con la salvedad de los niños, la mayoría de los alumnos de LE cuentan con una experiencia en el estudio (no
sólo de idiomas, sino en general) y con unas determinadas expectativas. Generalmente, sienten la necesidad de
comprender el funcionamiento de la LE, dominar las reglas, establecer analogías y esclarecer las anomalías. Si
en el proceso instructivo se opera exclusivamente con un modelo anomalístico, fiel a la ambigüedad y a la
arbitrariedad del lenguaje humano, se corre el peligro de frustrar sus expectativas de aprendizaje.

11
Salvo en casos especiales (como el del lingüista del ejemplo anterior), el conocimiento declarativo lo
concebimos como un medio, como un refuerzo metalingüístico, que facilita la adquisición del conocimiento
instrumental.
Si lo que necesitan nuestros alumnos es lograr un uso adecuado y espontáneo de la gramática, convendremos en
que lo prioritario es encaminarlos hacia un conocimiento instrumental .

Recordemos cómo fue nuestro propio proceso de aprendizaje de la gramática de nuestra lengua natal.
Recapacitemos sobre cómo se aprende, en general, la gramática de la L1:
1) En primer lugar, aprendemos a usar la L1.
2) Posteriormente, algunas personas en algunas comunidades lingüísticas estudiamos gramática, normalmente
en un contexto de aprendizaje formal.
Todas las personas pasan por la primera etapa. Sin embargo, muchas personas nunca acometen el aprendizaje
del sistema formal de su propia lengua natal; p. ej., los chinos no estudian gramática de su L1 ni en la
Enseñanza Primaria ni en la Enseñanza Secundaria.

6. ¿La instrucción formal de la gramática es útil?

Numerosos estudios en torno a la validez de la instrucción formal (v. Fotos & Ellis, 1991: 606-607; Ellis, 1993:
97; Pienemann, 1989) aportan datos en favor de las siguientes hipótesis:

Tiene una incidencia positiva, tanto en el ritmo de aprendizaje de la LE como en el nivel de consecución a
largo plazo.

Los aprendientes pueden beneficiarse de ella sólo si está adaptada a su etapa actual de interlengua.

Lo ideal es que vaya acompañada de oportunidades para la comunicación real.

Desarrolla el conocimiento explícito de aspectos gramaticales, y éste contribuye a la construcción del

conocimiento implícito.

Proporcionan oportunidades de interacción (p. ej., sobre un aspecto gramatical determinado), que contribuyen
directamente a la construcción del conocimiento implícito.

7. La enseñanza explícita de la gramática: un arma de doble filo

Cualquier aprendiente de una lengua –L1 o LE- construye sus propias reglas1: formula hipótesis y después las
pone a prueba. Ahora bien, no siempre encuentra la solución a sus dudas, y ahí –después de que el alumno ya ha
hecho un esfuerzo por sí mismo- es donde el profesor y el libro de gramática desempeñan un papel decisivo.
Así, la enseñanza explícita es una vía valiosa que auxilia a los alumnos a configurar ese sistema gramatical que
cada uno va modelando y remodelando etapa tras etapa de su interlengua.
A nuestro juicio, lo propio es que, en general, la enseñanza explícita de la gramática se reserve para cuando los
alumnos ya tengan un cierto nivel –digamos intermedio o avanzado- de la LE. Cuando se acomete su estudio
sistemático en las primeras etapas, algunos alumnos se bloquean con tantos esquemas, reglas, excepciones...:
quieren asegurarse en todo momento de que lo que dicen es correcto. Esa obsesión por la perfección va en
detrimento de la fluidez, sobre todo cuando se trata del lenguaje oral, pero también del lenguaje escrito.
8. Los riesgos de la gramática preceptiva
Un inconveniente paladino de la gramática preceptiva es su carácter inflexible: en ocasiones, una vez
comprobada la alta frecuencia y probabilidad de un fenómeno, se da por sentado que siempre es así y se plantea
como una norma de obligado cumplimiento. Cuando la experiencia lingüística del profesor o del propio
aprendiente entra en contradicción con la norma en cuestión, surge un desconcierto (cfr. Cortés Moreno, 2000:

12
108-10). Citamos, a modo de ejemplo, a unos renombrados gramáticos2, quienes, al explicar el uso del pretérito
imperfecto y el del indefinido, advierten lo siguiente:
Estimamos preferible que en los niveles iniciales los alumnos empiecen por aprender a usar la lengua, y en una
etapa ulterior, si lo desean o lo precisan, acometan un estudio de los sistemas formales de la LE: morfológico,
sintáctico, fonológico, etc.

Veamos unos ejemplos concretos: se graba un diálogo entre un grupo de alumnos y posteriormente se comentan
y corrigen errores de uso; el profesor selecciona algunos errores típicos que ha encontrado al revisar una
composición de cada alumno, los escribe en una transparencia y entre todos se corrigen; cada alumno le entrega
al profesor un trabajo sobre un tema de Historia de España, el profesor no se limita a corregir el contenido, sino
que también atiende a la forma: ortografía, gramática.

Partiendo de la base de que el aprendizaje no es lineal, sino cíclico o, mejor dicho, en espiral, consideramos
que la enseñanza será tanto más efectiva cuanto más respete esa característica, la espiralidad: comenzar
presentando unos contenidos sencillos y periódicamente repasarlos, pero ampliando poco a poco la información
presentada en la fase inicial; en cada repaso se añaden nuevos datos, relacionándolos con los ya aprendidos. Es
así como se le permite al aprendiente ir tejiendo paulatinamente una red de información cada vez más rica y
compleja.
Esto es lo que entendemos por aprendizaje significativo, tan distinto de la mera memorización de datos
aislados. El aprendizaje significativo conduce al desarrollo de la competencia comunicativa. La memorización,
por el contrario, únicamente permite unos buenos resultados a corto plazo: hacer bien un ejercicio en clase,
aprobar un examen... En el mejor de los casos, superando ejercicio tras ejercicio y examen tras examen, incluso
se obtiene un certificado o un título. La cuestión yace en si el documento está o no respaldado por un verdadero
dominio de la LE.

En este sentido, Gómez del Estal y Zanón (1999: 82-83) proponen no orientar la enseñanza de la gramática
“hacia la acumulación de conocimiento explícito”, sino plantear actividades de concienciación gramatical
(grammar consciousness-raising), que permitan a los propios alumnos ir descubriendo por sí mismos las
normas de uso de la LE.
Dado que una lengua no es una lista de oraciones descontextualizadas, entendemos que lo propio en su
enseñanza es operar con textos o discursos completos. Sólo de ese modo es posible aprender, en mayor o
menor grado, el verdadero uso de la gramática.
Nuestra experiencia, tanto en la docencia como en la investigación, nos ha demostrado que, contrariamente a lo
que en ocasiones se supone, es de suma utilidad realizar comparaciones entre la L1 de los alumnos –o
cualquier otra lengua que ya hayan empezado a aprender- y la LE (cfr. Swan & Smith, 1987; Fang, 1993). (En
el ámbito de la fonología, v. Cortés Moreno, 1992, 1996, 1999.)
A su debido tiempo, los aprendientes pueden extraer un gran provecho de aprender o, mejor aún, de tratar de
inducir ellos mismos reglas de sistematización,
ahorra un esfuerzo innecesario de memorización de datos inconexos, p. ej., de unidades léxicas como sientes,
pierden, llueve, juego, etc.
Familiarizarse con la terminología gramatical le facilita al estudiante el autoaprendizaje y el camino hacia la
autonomía; sólo si sabe, p. ej., que lo que necesita en un enunciado determinado es un imperfecto de subjuntivo,
podrá consultar en el paradigma de algún libro y hallar la forma apropiada. Tipos de gramatica:
Una gramática pedagógica debe ocuparse no sólo de la gramaticalidad y aceptabilidad de las frases, sino
también de los aspectos pragmáticos observables en el uso real de la LE. Si las muestras de lengua que se
ponen a disposición de los aprendientes no presentan un grado aceptable de naturalidad y verosimilitud, no
debemos extrañarnos si, tras varios años de instrucción formal, algunos aprendientes todavía no están
capacitados para desenvolverse con otro hablante de la LE en un acto de habla sencillo, por más que realicen a
la perfección las tareas lingüísticas de clase.

13
12. ¿Se puede aprender la gramática de la LE sin estudiarla?
Una proporción considerable de los emigrantes adultos que residen en España nunca asisten a clases de lengua
española. Si bien es cierto que algunos se aletargan en un nivel de supervivencia, no es menos cierto que otros
alcanzan un buen dominio del español, y ello, simplemente, merced a la práctica diaria: conversaciones, lectura,
televisión, etc.
Un caso bien distinto es el de los extranjeros que estudian español en su propio país. De ordinario, éstos no
tienen tantas oportunidades para practicarlo y deben afrontar unas condiciones de aprendizaje menos favorables
que en un país de habla hispana. A pesar de todo, poniendo el suficiente empeño por parte del centro, de los
profesores y de los alumnos, también es posible crear un ambiente propicio para el aprendizaje de la LE:
carteles, canciones, películas, charlas, etc.
Cuando aprendemos una LE –sea en un contexto formal o informal de aprendizaje-, desarrollamos una
intuición lingüística en la LE en cuestión, a imitación de lo que hacemos en la L1. Dicha intuición se va
construyendo a partir del cúmulo de muestras lingüísticas recibidas hasta el momento. Es ese conocimiento
interiorizado, automatizado e intuitivo el que hace que una expresión o un enunciado nos suene bien o mal,
natural o extraño.
En determinados casos, la intuición no nos basta, y entonces intentamos echar mano de las reglas aprendidas del
libro, del profesor, etc., o descubiertas mediante la reflexión. Sin embargo, el proceso de recordarlas y aplicarlas
es lento y, lo que es peor, no del todo fiable, debido, entre otras causas, a los errores de aprendizaje y a las
posibles excepciones.

En definitiva, los conocimientos declarativos sobre léxico, fonología, gramática, etc., por regla general, no
constituyen un fin en sí mismos, sino más bien un medio que auxilia a conseguir el verdadero fin: el dominio de
la lengua en un uso comunicativo espontáneo y auténtico (cfr. Giovannini et al., 1996, tomo 2: 7). A nuestro
juicio, sólo se puede aprender el verdadero uso recibiendo las suficientes muestras lingüísticas en múltiples
contextos orales y escritos, y empleándolas después.

14
A Contrastive Study of Grammar Translation Method and
Communicative Approach in Teaching English Grammar
Shih-Chuan Chang
Department of Foreign Languages, Cheng Shiu University
Chengcing Rd. Niaosong Township, Kaohsiung County, 833, Taiwan
Tel: 886-07-731-0606-6212 E-mail: llc724@csu.edu.tw
Received: October 21, 2010 Accepted: January 11, 2011 doi:10.5539/elt.v4n2p13
It is known that
“grammar is a set of rules that define how words (or parts of words) are combined or changed to form
acceptable
units of meaning within a language” (Penny, 2000). Penny, R. (2000). Variation and change in Spanish.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guaranteeing the accuracy of the sentences mainly depends on
the learner’s mastery of grammar. Grammar, which is an indispensable part of a language, is so important that
the
teachers and students have always attached great importance to grammar teaching and learning. For the
above-mentioned reasons, how to make grammar teaching and learning effective and efficient is an important
task
for both English teachers and researchers.
Grammar Translation Method. With this model, language structures are presented by
the teacher, then practiced in the form of spoken or written exercises, and then used by the learners in less
controlled
speaking or writing activities. Although the traditional grammar teaching method helps improve the students’
mastery of the grammatical rules, the students cannot use these rules flexibly and appropriately in
communication.
That is to say, the traditional grammar teaching method has its disadvantages which prevent the students from
developing their communicative competence. Firstly, the traditional grammar teaching method is teacher-
centered.
As a result, the majority of the classroom time is spent on the teachers’ elaborate explanation of English
grammar
rules, while all the students are either listening or taking notes. Thus little attention is paid to the development
of
English communicative competence. The students accept the English knowledge passively in the procedures set
ahead of time by English teachers step by step. There is little use of the English language. The typical exercise
is to
translate sentences from English into Taiwanese or vice versa, to fill in the blank with a proper word and to
correct
errors in a sentence. So the students lack English communicative opportunities. Secondly, memorization and
rote
learning are the basic learning techniques, which cannot help to arouse students’ interest, build their self-
confidence
or improve their communicative strategies in English learning and even makes them fear English grammar
learning.
An alternative to the traditional grammar teaching method is the Communicative Approach. The
Communicative
Approach makes language teaching as in real-world situation. Grammar learning is emphasized by
communication
through the approaches of ‘learning by doing’, through students’ participation or co-operative completion of
teaching tasks between or among students and teachers, then grammar can be acquired naturally by learners.
15
1.2 Significance of the research
For decades, English grammar teaching in Taiwan has been greatly influenced by some traditional teaching
methods,
such as the Grammar Translation Method, the Direct Method, and the Audio-Lingual Method. The
Communicative
Language Teaching or Communicative Approach was introduced into Taiwan in the late 1970s. Fostering the
communicative competence is its central goal. Communicative competence is concerned not only with what is
grammatical but what is appropriate in a given social situation. Hymes (1972) proposes that language should be
taught in communicative situations in order for learners to achieve communicative competence. Learners should
not
only be equipped with language knowledge, but also be capable of appropriately using the foreign language in
various situations. However, it has been gradually assumed among the scholars and teachers in Taiwan that
communicative competence makes the ultimate objective of English Language teaching, and the
Communicative
Approach, if completely and well conceived, does not involve the rejection of grammar. On the contrary, it
involves
recognition of its central mediating role in the use and learning of language (Widdowson, 1978).
What is called grammatical competence has been regarded as a significant
component of learner’s communicative competence by many linguists (Stern, 1992; Richards, 2004)

2. Literature review
2.1 Grammar teaching
2.1.1 Definition of grammar
In the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English with Taiwanese Translation, grammar is
referred to
as “study or science of, rules for, the words into sentences (syntax), and the forms of words (morphology)”. The
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines grammar as “the study of use of the rules by which
words
change their forms and are combined into sentences.” In fact, grammar is “multi-dimensional” (Batstone, 1994)
and
has multi-meanings. It is generally thought to be a set of rules for choosing words and putting words together to
make sense. Every language has grammar. It has been held that if a language is a building, the words are bricks
and
the grammar is the architect’s plan. One may have a million bricks, but do not make a building without a plan.
Similarly, if a person knows a million English words, but he doesn’t know how to put them together, then he
cannot
speak English (Brumfit, 2000). In other words, grammar is a framework to describe languages.
Hedge (2000) considers that the presentation of grammar to learners should facilitate learning
in many ways: It can provide input for noticing output and accurate forms of English; it can present high-
frequency
grammatical items explicitly to speed up learning; it can provide information about the communicative use of
language structures by contextualizing them in spoken and written form; it can give information implicitly
through
exposure to examples or explicitly through instruction on the stylistic variation of language form. Thornbury
(2001)
summarizes some rules of thumb about the teaching of grammar: (1) the Rule of Context—teaching grammar in

16
context, i.e. teaching grammatical forms in association with meanings (The choice of one grammatical form
over
another is always determined by the meaning the speaker or writer wishes to convey); (2) the Rule of Use—
teaching
grammar in order to facilitate the learners’ comprehension and production of real language, rather than as an
end in
itself; (3) the Rule of Economy—to fulfill the rule of use, be economical (economizing on presentation time in
order
to provide maximum practice time); (4) the Rule of Relevance-teach only the grammar that students have
problems
with (starting off by finding out what students already know, and don’t assume that the grammar of English is a
wholly different system from the learners’ mother tongue); (5) the Rule of Nurture—teaching doesn’t
necessarily cause learning—not in any direction (rather than occurring as flashes of insight, language learning is
more often
than not a process of gradual approximation. Instead of teaching grammar, try to provide the right conditions for
grammar learning); (6) the Rule of Appropriacy—interpret all the above rules according to the levels, needs,
interests, expectations and learning styles of the students (Giving a lot of prominence to grammar, or it may
mean
actually teaching grammar at all—in any up-front way). Ellis defines the definition of grammar teaching from a
broad sense: Grammar teaching involves any instructional technique that draws learners’ attention to some
specific
grammatical form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it metalinguistically and/or process it in
comprehension and/or production so that they can internalize it (Ellis, 2006).
2.2 A brief survey of Grammar Translation Method
2.2.1 The history of Grammar Translation Method
In the Western world, “foreign” language learning in schools was synonymous with the learning of Latin or
Greek.
Latin, thought to promote intellectuality through “mental gymnastics”, was only until relatively recently held to
be
indispensable to an adequate higher education. Latin was taught by means of what has been called the Classical
Method: focus on grammatical rules, memorization of vocabulary and of various declensions and conjugations
translation of texts, doing written exercises. (Brown, H.D., 1994)
As other languages began to be taught in educational institutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the
Classical Method was adopted as the chief means for teaching foreign languages. Little thought was given to
teaching oral use of languages. After all, languages were not being taught primarily to learn oral/aural
communication but to learn for the sake of being “scholarly” or, in some instances, for gaining a reading
proficiency
in a foreign language. Since there was little if any theoretical research on second language acquisition in
general, or
on the acquisition of reading proficiency, foreign languages were taught as any other skill was taught.
In the nineteenth century, the Classical Method came to be known as the Grammar Translation Method.
Grammar-Translation Method began in Germany, or more accurately, Prussia, at the end of the eighteenth
century
and established an almost impregnable position as the favored methodology of the Prussia Gymnasien after
their
expansion in the early years of the nineteenth century. The origins of the method do not lie in an attempt to
teach
languages by grammar and translation, these were taken for granted anyway. The original motivation was
reformist,
17
the traditional scholastic approach among individual learners in the eighteenth century had been to acquire
learners a
reading knowledge of foreign languages by studying a grammar and applying this knowledge to the
interpretation of
texts with the use of a dictionary. Most of them were highly educated men and women who were trained in
classical
grammar and knew how to apply the familiar categories to new languages.
2.3 The positive views on the Grammar Translation Method
Duff, unlike the behaviorists, has a positive view of the role of the learner’s mother tongue in second language
acquisition. He says that our first language forms our way of thinking and, to some extent, shapes our use of the
foreign language (choice of words, word order, sentence structure, etc.). Translation helps us understand the
influence of one language on the other, e.g., areas of potential errors caused by negative transfer from the first
language. Fully aware of the interference, students will try to avoid making such errors when performing in the
second language. When errors do occur, the students will be able to explain why and try not to make the same
mistakes again.

language always occurs in a social context, and it should not be divorced from its context when it is being
taught.
Learning in order to communicate is now commonplace.
2.4.2.1 The negative views on the Communicative Approach
Widdowson (1999) says that “learners do not very readily infer knowledge of the language system from their
communicative activities.”“Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) values, among other things,
learner-centeredness, which is, giving the learners more responsibility and involvement in the learning process.
This
is often achieved through discovery learning activities and through group work as opposed to the traditional
teacher-fronted lesson. CLT also takes a relatively relaxed attitude towards accuracy in the belief that meaning
takes
precedence over form. Finally, CLT has inherited the humanist view that language is an expression of personal
meaning, rather than an expression of a common culture. Such notions, it is argued, derive from very Western
beliefs
about education and language. Its critics argue that CLT is an inappropriate methodology in those cultural
contexts
where the teacher is regarded as a fount of wisdom, and where accuracy is valued more highly than fluency”
(Thornbury, S., 2003).
According to Ma Yinchu and Huang Jinyan (1992), its other demerits also deserve our attention:
(1) It makes greater demands upon the professional training and skill of the teachers. The teacher has to know
when
to take part and when to stand aside. In terms of preparation and professional skill in knowing when and how to
guide or leave the students alone, it demands very much more energy and adaptability from the teacher. The
teacher
also needs to be more confident in using the foreign language.
(2) It does not offer the teacher the security of the textbook. Whereas, with more traditional approaches, it is
enough
for the teacher to follow the textbook, here it is necessary for him to select, adapt and invent the materials he
uses.
(3) Because it appears to go against traditional practice, it often meets with opposition, especially from older

18
teachers and learners (Ma Yinchu & Huang Jinyan, 1992).
As they lack the knowledge of grammar, they are likely to make grammatically incorrect sentences. Therefore,
the Communicative Approach encourages some grammatical inaccuracy.
In addition to the above-mentioned disadvantages, direct correction of speech errors is usually avoided if they
do not
seriously affect the communicative purposes. This kind of practice may lead to fossilization of learner’s errors.
4.3 Conclusion
Without grammar, words hang together without any real meaning or sense. In order to be able to speak a
language to
some degree of proficiency and to be able to say what people really want to say, some grammatical knowledge
must
be grasped. By teaching grammar, the teachers not only give the students the means to express themselves, but
also
fulfill their expectations of what learning a foreign language involves. There are no miracles on the way to learn
a
language. No matter how students are taught grammatical concepts, syntactic constructions and stylistic
devices, or
language conventions and editing concepts, they will not automatically make use of these in their talking. What
this
thesis intends to focus on is how to improve college students’ grammatical competence and linguistic
competence
through the Grammar Translation Method.

19
20
Communicative Grammar: An Effective
Tool to Teach a Second Language in
Today’s Classes
Damaris Cordero Badilla
Ginneth Pizarro Chacón
Escuela de Literatura y Ciencias del Lenguaje
Universidad Nacional
Abstract
This paper looks briefly at the advantages of implementing the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in
the traditional grammar lessons, and the way it makes the students learn a second language in an interactive
and creative classroom environment. Also, it discusses current teaching strategies and the methodological
transformation of grammar in the language courses.
Resumen
Este documento examina brevemente las ventajas de la aplicación de la Enseñanza Comunicativa de la Lengua
(ECL) en las clases de gramática tradicional, y la forma en que esta metodología hace que los estudiantes
aprendan un segundo idioma en un ambiente de aula interactivo y creativo. Además, se discuten las estrategias
actuales de enseñanza y la transformación metodológica de la gramática en los cursos de idiomas.
Professors’ understanding of the adequate teaching of grammar in the classroom can vary according to the
language teacher’s perspective and methodology. Each instructor looks for the best teaching strategy to force
their students to learn the grammar structures in a clear and precise way. Through their search, they can
implement several strategies; nevertheless, some of them are not effective enough to make students learn this
skill. However, the term communicative has been misunderstood since many instructors believe that students
should simply articulate the language without following any rule or sentence pattern. But, as Richards (2006)
stated, “CLT can be understood as a set of principles about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a
language, the kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and learners in
the classroom”. (p. 2). But language teachers’ ideas about the concept can vary and they might visualize their
methodology in terms of making grammar classes more interactive and productive.
On the other hand, the main goal of CLT is the teaching of communicative competence, which refers to
knowledge of the building blocks of sentences (e.g. parts of speech, tenses, a teaching methodology which deals
with certain aspects
of language knowledge such as: knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions,
how to vary our use of language according to the setting and the participants, e.g. knowing when to use formal
and informal
speech or when to use languages appropriately for written as opposed to spoken communication, how to
produce and understand different types of texts (e.g. narratives, reports, interviews, conversations), and how to
maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s language knowledge (e.g. through using different
kinds of communication strategies).
Second language learning is facilitated when learners are engaged in interaction and meaningful
communication.
• Effective classroom learning tasks and exercises provide opportunities for students to negotiate meaning,
expand their language resources, notice how language is used, and take part in meaningful intrapersonal
exchange.
• Communication is a holistic process that often calls upon the use of several language skills or modalities.
• Language learning is facilitated both by activities that involve inductive or discovery learning of underlying
rules of language use and organization, as well as those involving language analysis and reflection (p. 23).
These assumptions help language teachers analyze the approaches used while teaching grammar and make
students internalize and use it in a natural and spontaneous way. Here, it is also relevant to mention two
approaches that can

21
bring a light to language teaching using communicative activities: the inductive approach and the deductive
approach. The inductive approach provides students with some examples from which a rule is inferred, and the
deductive approach with the presentation of rules and some examples in which the rule is applied.
At the same time, Thornbury (1999) mentioned some advantages and disadvantages of these approaches such
as:
The inductive Approach´s advantages:
• Rules learners discover for themselves are more likely to fit their existing mental structure than rules that have
been presented to them. This in turn will make rules more meaningful, memorable and applicable.
• Students are more actively involved in the learning process, rather than being simply passive recipients: they
are therefore likely to be more attentive and motivated.
• If the problem-solving is done collaboratively, and in the target language, learners get the opportunity for extra
language practice (Thornbury, 1999: 59).
Some disadvantages are:
• The time and energy spent in working out rules may mislead students into believing that rules are the objective
of language learning, rather than the means.
• The time taken to work out a rule may be at the expense of time spent in putting the rule to some sort of
productive practice.
• Students may hypothesize the wrong rule (Thornbury, 1999: 59).
On the other hand, some advantages of the deductive approach are:
The deductive approach:
• It gets straight to the point and saves time. Many rules can be simply and quickly explained rather than elicited
from examples.
• It respects the intelligence and maturity of many—especially adult— students, and acknowledges the role of a
cognitive process of language acquisition.
• It allows the teacher to deal with language points as they come up, rather than having to anticipate them and
prepare them in advance (Thornbury, 1999: 59).
Some disadvantages:
• Starting the lesson with a grammar presentation may be off- putting for some students, especially younger
ones. They may not have sufficient metalanguage (language used to talk about language such as grammar) and
may not be able to understand the concepts involved.
Grammar explanation encourages a teacher-fronted, transmission-style classroom; teacher explanation is often
at the expense of student involvement and interaction.
• Explanation is seldom as memorable as other forms of presentation, such as demonstration (Thornbury, 1999:
59).
Certainly, both approaches display advantages and disadvantages in their applicability in the teaching process;
however, the deductive approach relates more strongly to the main objective of this research, for teaching
grammar in a
communicative manner helps students explore the given example and deduce why certain rules are applied to
those specific examples. Through this process, learners may have the possibility to adapt those rules to some
other examples, create some other rules and develop their own learning process (Thornbury, 1999).
As Borg, (1998: 17) said, the use of a particular teaching technique, approach, or methodology will be
influenced by the language teacher’s educational background, and by the formal training that this teacher had.
Consequently, a
teacher whose educational background was firmly influenced by the idea of making students enjoy thinking
about grammar, and applying rules in a practical and updated way, will implement methodologies based on
context- based activities, and will use this skill like a tool to allow language learners to learn, possess, and
analyze the second language while they interact with native speakers and classmates. In this constant search to
innovate and make classes dynamic and inspiring, two teaching strategies will be mentioned: the
communicative strategy and the explicit strategy.
Teaching strategies: The Communicative strategy and the Explicit strategy
22
Two teaching strategies pointed out by Ulrich (1994: 4) are the Communicative strategy and the explicit
strategy. The combination of these two strategies provides students with a clear and well- explained theoretical
framework and a contextualized and natural environment to make them use the language in a native- like way.
This way, language teachers must include communicative activities in their lesson plans such as oral
presentations, individual or group projects, free written production, spontaneous speech, and the development of
their own written and oral style. This can be done without violating the target language rules and students of a
second language can implement all the theoretical aspects in their oral and written performance. In this way,
learners will visualize grammar classes as an enjoyable experience that becomes the basis of a lifelong learning
process.
Advantages and disadvantages of traditional grammar
Traditional grammar emphasizes learning technical vocabulary for nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives;
learners are taught grammatical rules to master sentence patterns. In this approach, a grammar rule is explicitly
presented to students and followed by a practice exercise to apply the rule. So, the learners are in control during
the practice and have less fear of drawing an incorrect conclusion related to how the target language is
functioning.
On the other hand, Ellis (1995), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) suggested that this type of language learning
may not have major effects on sequences of acquisition, but it has facilitative effects on both the rate and the
ultimate level of second language acquisition.
Similarly, other studies on the effectiveness of second language instruction (Norris & Ortega, 2000) concluded
that this type of explicit instruction (presenting the structure, describing and exemplifying it, and giving
rules for its use) results in important improvements in the learning of target structures. However, implicit
instruction (usually consisting of communicative exposure to the target form) alone can delay students to
achieve their learning goals.
According to Ulrich (1994), grammatical rules enable learners to know and apply how such sentence patterns
should be put together, and the teaching of grammar should focus its attention on the way grammatical items or
sentence patterns are correctly used. In other words, teaching grammar should encompass language structure or
sentence patterns, meaning and use.
Indeed, in traditional language teaching, what students learn and how they learn are determined with reference
to the classroom situation, rather than with reference to the learners’ real communicative needs in real
situations. As a result, learners often have difficulty using what they have learned, beyond the
classroom. For this reason, Skehan (1996) advised that the traditional model is not supported by current
research; he maintains that the belief on a precise focus of a particular form leads to learning, but it doesn’t
mean that to practice drills or diagram sentences has little relevance to use grammar effectively. Besides, this
type of logical approach encourages the belief that learning a language is simply a case of knowing rules.
However, the traditional methodology can be combined with a new communicative teaching methodology since
the latter brings benefits to the students’ learning process.

Advantages of implementing the communicative teaching methodology in the Grammar classes

Learning a language through a communicative method can provide the learner a better opportunity to
communicate than a grammar-based approach.
But, there are several aspects that make the Communicative Approach and the traditional grammar method
useful tools for students to learn the second language.
Some of which there are:
• Make real communication the focus of language learning.
• Provide opportunities to experiment and try what they know.
Be tolerant of learners’ errors as they indicate that the learner is building up his or her communicative
competence.
• Provide opportunities for learners to develop both accuracy and fluency.
23
• Link the different skills, such as speaking, reading and listening, together in the real world.
• Let students induce, or discover, grammar rules. (Richards, 2006: 13)
Applying these principles in the classroom will require language teachers to modify their teaching
methodology. Consequently, activities that demand accurate repetition, memorization of phrases, sentence
patterns and grammatical rules, drills, and multiple choices must be substituted for activities that require
learners to organize their knowledge about language, to negotiate meaning, interact with their peers, plan
activities that require logical thinking and defend their point of view.
Communicative teaching strategies: practical and enjoyable activities
To make grammar classes active, vivid and creative is a constant challenge for most grammar teachers. This is
not an easy task since it requires language teachers to develop and implement catchy activities to provoke
students’ enthusiasm and interest. The traditional exercises such as fill-in-the-blanks, drills, multiple choice and
rewriting sentences, among others, have not sufficed to fulfill the teacher’s main objective, which is to enable
students to learn grammar.
Teachers feel they should push students to memorize structures that are not contextualized or used in everyday
speech, and this is why students don’t know how to use those structures in a flexible and practical way.
However, there are some helpful and enjoyable activities proposed by various specialists that can
make language teachers’ classes more fun and task- oriented:
1. a topic in which specific noun phrases must be used. Provide the list of noun phrases and verbal phrases you
want the students to use. Using that information, students (individually or in groups) will write a
story of three or four paragraphs. Here, they will focus on meaning and organization.
2. Have students write a questionnaire including open or closed questions as well as pictures or paragraphs.
Once it is checked by the language teacher, students will look for three or four interviewees to answer the
questions about different topics, the content in the paragraphs, or to describe the pictures. The main purpose of
this |activity is to monitor others’ grammatical structures and be capable of identifying grammatical
errors. Testing others’ knowledge allows students to go through self assessment process.
3. Students sit down in a circle. The language teacher asks the students for a catchy and challenging topic to talk
about. When the topic is chosen, the teacher chooses a verb tense and begins the story by providing
the thesis statement to be developed orally by the students. Then, the first student on his right side continues by
adding two or three sentences. Each student adds something until finally the last participant gives the
concluding sentence to end the story. The idea is to keep the same verb tense throughout the story and see how
students insert new information and vocabulary, and use simple or complex verbal phrases.
They become story-tellers.
4. Give students a history textbook, a paragraph, or a newspaper article in English. Ask students to identify the
tense, key words, simple or complex sentences, and use of connectors. They must also analyze the discourse
pattern that alternates between subjects or perspectives. This task will make students anticipate the forms and
structures the text will have since it follows a predictable format. This will develop their predicting skills.
5. Teacher and students can ask and answer questions about any topic. Here, the teacher will implement
communicative drills that will encourage students to connect form, meaning, and use several grammatical
structures to enable the speaker’s message to be understood by the listener. Students are not repeating the same
idea or set content; they will develop the ability to use language to convey ideas and information and
to encounter the grammar rule in a variety of contexts. This encourages speaker-listener communication.
6. The teacher matches grammatical patterns to particular communicative meanings, and the learners choose the
right pattern to express ideas and feelings about a particular topic. This will help them to use
grammar to express different communicative meanings, thus to see the connection between form and function.
7. The teacher encourages students to bring their own authentic data into the classroom, and assists them in
seeing how grammatical forms operate in context by enabling speakers and writers to make communicative
meanings through different tasks. Learners encounter target language items in the kinds of contexts where they
naturally occur and experience language items in interactions with other closely related grammatical
and discourse elements.
24
8. The teacher and students engage in a short discussion on ways of relating the content of a grammar structure
to picture sequences of learners’ own lives. Learners are encouraged to bring their background knowledge to the
discussion. In doing so, the teacher focuses on the use of referential questions in order to review grammar forms
with the students, while genuine communication, content- based topic nominations, student/ student interactions
and the negotiation of meaning by students and teacher are used.
A few professors really plan and implement activities that require students to use their knowledge in grammar
and create sentences that can be inserted in a conversation, role play or monologue.

daily conversations and academic activities.

In question d (After the teacher’s explanation of any of the grammar rules in English, were you able to
use, transform or adapt this structure to your reallife context? Why? Or Why not?), they stated they use the
grammar input to talk to other people, adapt and apply them correctly in context, and use those rules in
oral courses; however, sometimes they don’t remember how to use them. Some of them mentioned that once
they have internalized the grammar rules, they are able to transform, understand and apply them in real life
contexts. However, some of them require practicing more at home since classes are not enough to use
the rules and learn how to contextualize them.
In question e (When you write paragraphs, essays or a dialogue, are you able to use the grammar structures
learned in your English classes? Why? Why not?), most of them agreed that writing allows them to be more
careful when using the grammatical rules than producing spontaneous speech. Students have
more time and opportunity to monitor themselves in their written production; also they can go to the theory if
they don`t remember or understand a structure.
Finally, they are very conscious and careful when writing their own ideas in the target language.
Teaching grammar requires more than making students memorize lists of words, noun phrases, verbal phrases,
prepositions, articles and other grammatical structures. It urges the implementation of effective and useful
teaching methodologies to guide, help, and induce students to visualize grammar as an efficient tool for
transmitting their ideas in a clear and precise way. Grammar can be the vehicle to encourage a student’s social
integration into foreign cultures and peer interactions.
Consequently, language teachers must see grammar teaching strategies as a way to develop techniques to teach
the grammar subjects by implementing communicative activities in the classroom. Teachers must understand
that students learn in different ways and have different strengths and abilities.
This way, Communicative Language Teaching and Traditional Grammar Teaching can become perfect
complements rather than separate issues.
Finally, language teachers must be viewed as facilitators who are in a constant search for alternative teaching
strategies. They must be willing to modify, adjust or implement new methodology to make the teaching of
grammar a challenging and rewarding experience for learners. Teachers must become colearners
who see their students’ learning experiences as an opportunity to learn grammar from a different perspective.

25
26
COMUNICATIVE APPROACH IN GRAMMAR TEACHING
A. V. Pavlovych
Kyiv, National Technical University of Ukraine
“Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”
kpi.pavlovych@gmail.com
O. O. Ivanova,
Kyiv, National Technical University of Ukraine
“Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”
kpi.ivanovaolga@gmail.com
Grammatical competence is an important constituent of communicative competence. Learning grammar does
not include only
rules but use of the rules as a partof fluent communication. Comprehension of grammar material is
indispensable. Learning new
grammatical patterns is done by means of context when learners try to infer a rulei. e. meaning of a certain
grammatical structure
from what they read or hear. Teachers have to use different methods based on interaction and life-related
situations to help learners
acquire new grammar material. CLT requires a creative approach to grammar teaching. Different forms of
group work are
inescapable. Inductive method is used in new grammar material teaching. There is also a cognitive constituent
in teaching grammar,
which implies that learners have to perceive new grammatical structure and comprehend it in real-life situations.
A teacher is a
facilitator for learners helping and guiding them throughout a learning process.
Introduction. It is well-known that learning foreign languages is more than just necessary in the
modern world. Mastering a foreign language is a means for graduates of higher educational establishments to
get prospective employment opportunities.

Communicative language teaching (CLT) was first proposed in 1970s. Since the 1990s, the
communicative approach in language teaching has been incorporated in teaching process. In the modern
foreign language teaching, communicative approach is an indispensable part of a teaching process. It is based
on life-related situations allowing learners to practice their speaking skills, do information research and
acquire knowledge by themselves, a teacher is only a guide for learners and not an information source.Using
communicative approach in teaching grammar has peculiarities and requires suitable methodological,
pedagogical and psychological approaches.
Topicality. Communicative language teaching (CLT) is the core trend in foreign language teaching. D.
Hymes, M. Halliday, N. Chomsky, O. B. Tarnopolskii and many other scholars research trends of CLT
implementation in foreign language teaching. Jack C. Richards defines CLT “as a set of principles about the
goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds of classroom activities that best
facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and learners in the classroom” [1, p. 1-30].
The teaching process was under a teacher`s control. Now there are different principles being a
foundation in language acquisition. Interaction between users of the language, creation and negotiation of
meaning, using the language the one hears in their speech are considered necessary in language learning.
Group work provides learners with such benefits: they can hear the language used by other learners, they can
produce a greater amount of language than they would use in teacher-fronted activities, the level of
motivation is likely to increase, learners have a chance to develop fluency. Authenticity is another aspect of
CLT. Materials and lessons are supposed to mirror real world and relate to alive communication [1, p. 1-30].
Aims. The article investigates the use of communicative approach in foreign language teaching and its
connection with grammar teaching. The following tasks are to be done:
27
- to define the term communicative competence in terms of communicative teaching approach;
- to research principles of CLT and compare it with traditional teaching methods;
- to define the term grammatical competence;
- to determine teaching strategies that are efficient in teaching grammar taking into account students`
acquisition of grammar material.

Communicative competence. In communicative language teaching the goal is communicative

competence. Communicative competence includes the following aspects: knowing how to use language for
different purposes, ability to use language according to the setting and participants (formal and informal
speech, written or spoken communication), knowing how to use and understand different types of texts
(narratives, reports, conversations, interviews), ability to communicate having limited knowledge of
language (different communication strategies) [1, p. 1-30]. Grammatical competence was seen as the main
constituent of learning language. Learners had to make correct sentences, memorize dialogues. In CLT
learners have to explore the new material, comprehend it and for the rule. The use of authentic materials is an
indispensable part of teaching process. The advantages of authentic materials are: cultural information about
the target language, exposure to real world, they relate to learners` needs, a more creative approach to
teaching. There are the following arguments against authentic materials: created materials can also be
motivating for learners, created materials correspond to syllabi as opposed to authentic ones for they may not
always have this characteristic, authentic materials can have difficult and irrelevant language[1, p. 1-30].
In communicative teaching communicative competence is important which presumes that a person
knows a language and can use it in different situations. Many other teaching methods are aimed at structural
competence of a language. There are such sectors of a communicative competence: grammar competence,
correspondence of contexts, an appropriate use of language and a performance. Communicative approach
includes language learning through communication. Using situations in communicative approach has created
certain tendencies in communicative teaching. They are: communicative direction of all kinds of teaching,
learner-centered approach, taking into account interests of learners, teaching materials are used according the
topic or situation and functional principle.

A text, which is the main communicative unit, is an important constituent in communicative teaching. A
text can help to learn new grammatical and lexical material by means of reading or listening, translation and
commenting, and make communicative situations based on a text. Different kinds of exercises are used in
communicative teaching: games, dialogues, monologues, discussions, drilling activities, brainstorming. It is
recommended to use exercises of the highest level that according to O. B. Tarnopolskii help to form
communicative competence and develop speaking skills in a real communicational situation [2, p. 15-19].
On the other hand, communication is not based only on rules. Vocabulary and grammatical structures
are not all constituents of mastering a language. It is essential to know how a language is used in certain
situations. Siao-cingGuo claims that three types of knowledge are necessary in learning a language:
grammar, signification and use [3, p.123-128]. It is considered that language competence includes four
components: linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence. The forms, the use, the meanings
and the functions are necessary to speak any language. Language is used to express opinions, attitudes and
thoughts, to discuss things, to give descriptions etc. All these parts of communication require the knowledge
of the whole language, not only rules or words. The use of authentic materials is one of the significant
elements in learning a foreign language. It helps to create a life-related communication and see the use of a
target language in different situations.
Communicative Language Teaching. CLT includes a variety of different educational traditions and
paradigms. The following points, given by J.C. Richards, highlight modern teaching practices in CLT [1, p. 7-
12].
1. Interaction and communication are necessary for learners to learn a foreign language.
2. Students should have opportunities to communicate, negotiate meaning of new lexis or structures,
notice the functioning of language.
28
3. Student need to work with relevant, interesting, engaging and purposeful material.
4. Communication is the process requiring several skills.
5. Inductive and discovering learning, analysis and reflection are required as well.
6. Language learning includes trial and error in the creative language use. The goal of learning is to be
fluent in using new language correctly.
7. Learners learn and perceive language in individual ways, have different motivations and needs to
learn a language.
8. Successful language learning is characterized by effective learning and communication strategies.
9. A teacher is a facilitator who provides students with opportunities to learn, use and practice new
language.
10. The classroom is a community where students learn by means of collaboration and sharing.
CLT includes elements of traditional methods. Classroom activities have such peculiarities:
1. Grammar material is learned through communication, not in isolation.
2. Communication, interaction and negotiation of meaning are used by means of such activities as
problem solving, information sharing, and role play.
3. Inductive and conductive grammar learning is provided.
4. Using material related to students` lives.
5. Authentic materials are used to make lessons interesting and provide valid language models.

CLT includes elements of traditional methods. Classroom activities have such peculiarities:
1. Grammar material is learned through communication, not in isolation.
2. Communication, interaction and negotiation of meaning are used by means of such activities as
problem solving, information sharing, and role play.
3. Inductive and conductive grammar learning is provided.
4. Using material related to students` lives.
5. Authentic materials are used to make lessons interesting and provide valid language models.
There have been some changes, basically a so called shift in language teaching concerning teachers,
teaching and learning. This shift is charactarised by the following peculiarities:
1. A learner-centered instruction is a prerogative apart from a teacher-centered instruction.
2. The shift from product-oriented to process-oriented instruction (i. e. more attention is paid to the
learning process rather than to the products learners produce).
3. Students are involved in the learning whose constituent is a socialized component, students are not
separate individuals.
4. Taking into account individual differences and peculiarities of learners.
5. Internal qualitative research which manifests the subjective and affective, inner and unique views of
learners.
6. Holistic learning is emphasized. School is connected with the outer world.
7. Students need help with understanding the necessity of learning and forming their own purposes.
8. A whole-to-part orientation. It involves such approaches as beginning with meaningful texts and then
helping learners understand features of that enable texts to function.
9. Understanding of meaning is predominant rather than rote learning.
10. Learning is viewed at as a life-long process.
It is claimed that the above mentioned shift in language teaching caused the following changes to
language teaching: learners` autonomy (learners have more possibilities to control their own studying), the
social nature of learning which depends on interaction, curricula integration (a foreign language is connected
with other subjects), focus on meaning (exploration of meaning), diversity (students use different learning
strategies), thinking skills, alternative assessment, teacher are co-learners.
Grammatical Competence. Grammar Teaching. CLT includes grammatical competence.
Grammatical competence is knowledge of a language that helps speakers to make sentences and blocks of
29
sentences (phrases, utterances, parts of speech, tenses, sentence patterns). Communicative competence
includes the following components: use of language for different purposes, variations in use of language
according to situations and speakers (formal or informal speech), understanding of different types of texts
(narratives, conversations, reports, interviews), having conversation despite limitations in one`s language
knowledge (using different communication strategies). On the other hand a learner can master skills
necessary to make sentences but still be incapable to use them for a meaningful communication and thus
have no or insufficient communicative competence [1, p.1-30].
It is interesting that scholars have different views about drawing students` attention to grammar. But it is
generally considered that grammar should be taught communicatively. Structured input activities are one of
ways to do it. They imply that students are supposed to encode grammatical forms I the meaningful context.
While doing that they learn these forms and can comprehend their use [4, p. 61-75].
Learning grammar includes rules that are necessary to understand the language itself but learners cannot
learn grammar only by means of rules. Communicative approach is aimed at developing speaking skills and
understanding grammar rules and their use in language.
The communicative purpose for teaching grammar is to help learners to use target language. Grammar
knowledge has to be systemized, comprehended and used in speech fluently. In teaching grammar conscious
and subconscious processes of learners should be taken into consideration [5, p. 120-126].

Teaching Strategies in Grammar Teaching. In teaching grammar two main approaches can be used:
the deductive approach and the inductive one. The deductive approach implies presentation of rules and
examples of their use. Conversely, the inductive approach is aimed at providing some examples for the use
of a certain rule and then the rule itself is derived. In CLT the latter is applied. All basic principles of CLT
are implemented through the use of the inductive approach in teaching grammar. Both approaches can be
combined to help students understand grammar rules correctly. Pair work or group work, discussions help
learners to interact and enjoy learning process. Learning rules helps to consolidate acquired knowledge and
is learned and use it in speech [6, p.267-283].
D. Newby claims that different parts of language or grammatical structures has to be presented and
taught as a communicative event “as it stresses “action-oriented”, “real-time” perception nature of language”
[7, p. 14]. A cognitive+communicative approach implies that learners should perceive grammatical structures
as parts of natural language. This approach does not distinguish between grammar and meaning but between
grammar meaning and message meaning. The meaning of an utterance is expressed by all its parts including
grammar. The term notional grammar is used by D. Newby: “A Notion will be defined as a single
semanticogrammatical
concept, or a grammatical meaning, expressed by a speaker when s/he formulates a proposition
and encodes it into form” [7, p. 21]. Examples of notions: arranged activity (I am playing tennis tonight);
expressing intention (I am going to use my new racket); interpreting signs (It is going to be a tough match);
making a prediction (I will probably be back by six); spontaneous decisions (I think I will change my racket).
Grammar rules are aimed at highlighting “salient perceptional elements” and helping learners to
understand use of certain grammar patterns. According to D. Newby the Notional approach, if used
systematically, has considerable advantages that make teaching process more efficient. It also minimizes
learning of rules and helps teachers be clear about what they teach and learners to understand clearly what
they learn [7, p. 13-34].
An example of the use of communicative approach in teaching the grammatical constructions will and
be going to.
Students read two dialogues.
Dialogue 1.
Sandra. Let`s go to the cinema.
Mike. That is a great idea. I will buy tickets.
Dialogue 2.
Sandra. We are going to watch a new film at the cinema.
30
Marry. Watch it. That`s a wonderful film.
After reading the dialogue students have to guess why speakers use will and be going to to speak about
the same future activity. They discuss it in pairs and tell a teacher their ideas. A teacher helps them to
identify the difference between these two grammatical constructions. The second task for learners is to do an
exercise and open brackets. Then students make their own dialogues using will and be going to and speak in
pairs. At the final stage a teacher can ask one of learners write on a board when they use will and be going to,
e. g. will – spontaneous decisions, be going to – intentions. In such a way students interact, analyze liferelated
situations in which these constructions are used and derive the rule by themselves. So, a teacher
elicits information, engages students and helps them to study and activate their knowledge. Learners teach
themselves with a teacher`s help which is the basic principle of communicative teaching.
Conclusions. Communicative approach is a foundation of modern foreign language teaching. The main
goal of a teacher within CLT is to create favorable environment for students to acquire communicative
competence as it is not only about the knowledge of a language but also a person’s ability to use it for
different purposes and according to the situation. The main principles of CLT include ability to interact and
communicate, work with relevant, interesting, engaging and purposeful material, sharing and collaboration
within the classroom. But CLT includes elements of traditional methods as well. Grammatical competence as
one of the constituents of communicative competence implies knowledge of a language that helps speakers
to make sentences and blocks of sentences. Teaching grammar in terms of CLT requires good knowledge of
language, psychology and pedagogics and teaching methods.

31
32
The role of grammar teaching: from
Communicative approaches to the Common
European Framework of Reference for
Languages.
José López Rama
Gloria Luque Agulló
Universidad de Jaén

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. (Thornbury, 1999:14)
the role of grammar
has been addressed by a number of linguistic theories, methodologies, and currently, within
the European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF, for short). The way grammar is –or
has been- considered has a direct and decisive influence on pedagogical grammars, learning
processes and many other areas involved in foreign language teaching. Grammar, as a subsystem
in a network of other linguistic sub-systems and sub-skills (Newby, 2003), has been
attached different roles in the language classroom, reaching little consensus, not only about the
particular items to be taught, but about when, or how, or even where to teach or learn.
the role of grammar
has been addressed by a number of linguistic theories, methodologies, and currently, within
the European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF, for short). The way grammar is –or
has been- considered has a direct and decisive influence on pedagogical grammars, learning
processes and many other areas involved in foreign language teaching. Grammar, as a subsystem
in a network of other linguistic sub-systems and sub-skills (Newby, 2003), has been
attached different roles in the language classroom, reaching little consensus, not only about the
particular items to be taught, but about when, or how, or even where to teach or learn.
Lock (1997:267) mentions some of the dichotomies
that arise whenever dealing with grammar teaching, which are form vs. function, form vs.
meaning, fluency vs. accuracy, meaning-based instruction vs. form-based instruction, and the
one which most emphasizes the denial of grammar teaching: communication vs. grammar.

Traditional grammar teaching was based on aformal notion of competence: the underlying
knowledge of concepts and rules stored in the minds of speakers which equated grammar with
syntax and morphology, considering meaning as totally different linguistic level.The theoretical
foundations of this approach are based both on Structuralism and Generativism, two prefunctional
linguistic movements. The Structuralist view of language, associated to observable
behaviors, was based on the analysis of form (phonology, morphology and syntax) over meaning
(semantics), to which it did not pay any attention. On the other hand, Generativism considered
that language should not be based on the classification of ‘surface/individual’ structures but
rather, on the development of a system of innate and mental rules which would account for
the structural possibilities of a language; however, it still considered syntax central.The set of practices
associated to this approach have to do with the presentation-practice-production
cycle, where the teacher presented the new grammatical item with the rule and the explanation of
form and meaning. Then some controlled exercises were done, to consolidate the rule, and this
intensive practice –or drilling- would eventually lead to production. Grammatical competence
was viewed as conscious, explicit knowledge of rules (declarative knowledge, in psychological
terms).

33
Thus, grammatical knowledge was performance, rather than competence,
and grammar was considered as a sub-skill to be learned as procedural knowledge (doing rather
than just knowing).
Within communicative approaches a distinction can be made between the general, nonprescriptive
approach called Communicative Language Teaching, which appeared in the
80’s and which transformed the world of foreign languages teaching, and other more precise
communicative methods which emerged from the appearance of CLT, but which went beyond
linguistic theories including a more encompassing view of the learning processes, such as
Task-Based Language Teaching, Focus-on-Form, Cooperative Language Teaching3 and
Content-Based Instruction, which have been considered post-communicative approaches.
Grammatical knowledge within these approaches still maintains a functional-communication
based view of language, but supports linguistic views with cognitive or constructivist theories.
This performance-based account of language learning can also be ascribed tothe CEF, as its
descriptors are, (Newby, 2006:3), “action-oriented”: they focus on what a learner can do with the
language. However, because of its relevance, the CEF will be considered in a separate section.
2. The role of grammar in CLT
There is a widespread belief that Communicative Language Teaching does not include any
grammar. However, Spada argues that the thought that “Communicative Language Teaching
means an exclusive focus on meaning” is a myth or a misconception (Spada, 2007:275). In
fact, that widespread belief that CLT eclipsed attention to grammar is only partly true, since
although CLT syllabuses are organized according to categories of meaning or functions, they still
have a strong grammar basis (Thornbury, 1999:23), that is to say, the functions into which CLT
syllabuses are organized are connected with their correspondent grammatical points.
Discussing the role of grammar within any communicative approach can be controversial,
due to these misconceptions and also to the influence of Natural Approaches4, which ascribed
no grammar role in language learning. However, when explaining the role of grammar specifically
in CLT, some of that controversy may be solved.
The shallow-end approach to Communicative Language Teaching is based on the thought
that in order to make the learner use language in a communicative situation it is necessary first
to learn the grammatical rules and then apply them in that communicative situation; on the
other hand, the deep-end approach to CLT is based on the belief that grammar is acquired
unconsciously during the performance on those communicative situations, so it would be
useless to teach grammar previously and explicitly (Thornbury, 1999:18-19)

According to this, CLT does deal with grammar, at least in its shallow-end approach. First,
it just dresses up the grammatical structures into communicative functions; although they are
not presented explicitly, they are still there. Second, if we have a functional, Hallidayan concept
of grammar, the explicit teaching of functions would still be grammar teaching: according to
Halliday, grammar is the study of linguistic forms (wordings) realizing functions or meanings;
both wordings and functions are studied by grammar (Halliday,1997).

In shallow-end syllabuses grammar is taught, but it is the way in which it is taught and its final result into the
learners’ communicative performance the two factors that make that grammar meaningful and communicative.
In the
shallow-end to CLT, grammar is taught in a way that we can define as inductive: learners are
not presented with a list of grammatical rules that they have to learn by heart (presentationpractice-
production cycle) but rather, the teacher provides them with examples from which the
learners will have to infer the rules by themselves. Rutherford (1996) calls this inductive way of
teaching consciousness-raising. By means of this consciousness-raising, the teacher makes the
34
learners relate the new grammatical concepts to other grammatical information that they already
have, both from other grammatical concepts in the target language or even from grammatical
information which appears in their L1. By provoking a consciousness-raising in the learners they
take into account their general framework of knowledge which is already acquired, so the new
grammar is as familiar to the learner as possible and it is not presented as something strange or
unattached to previous knowledge.
Contrarily from the shallow-end approach, the deep-end methodology claimed that grammar
should be acquired unconsciously, in line with Krashen’s theories (1985) reflected on his Natural
Approach, which became widely popular as an acquisition-oriented model. The cycle of inputintake-
output reflected in this theory assumed no role for grammar, as it would affect the final
aim of communication. This model has had a great influence on ELT, and there is still a belief
that the teaching of grammar might be harmful for communicative competence, as it claims that
conscious reflection about grammar affects negatively input processing and performance (the
dichotomy grammar vs. communication). According to Lock, this excluding view of grammar in
deep-end approaches was also strongly influenced by a rejection of traditional methodologies
in which grammatical competence was acquired with the approach of the rule plus drilling
methodology typical of Audiolingual or traditional grammar methods (Lock, 1997:267), because
learning outcomes were not satisfactory: learners knew a lot about grammar but were unable to
put that grammatical knowledge into practice. The reaction, in deep-end approaches, was not
to teach grammar, as learners would be unable to integrate it within communication processes.
However, even when the contradiction about teaching grammar still exists in ELT literature, in the
classroom the deep-end approach is not currently used, as most authors and teachers attach
a role to grammar, without diminishing the main target of communication.
In short, all these approaches share the functional view of language but, as has been stated
in the first section, they also take into account a more operative view of learning, in which the
dichotomy of conscious versus unconscious knowledge (acquisition, in Krashen’s terms) is
solved by asserting the fact that conscious knowledge can become unconscious or automatised
(Schmidt, 2001) and, alternatively, unconscious knowledge can be analyzed (Skehan, 1998).
A second issue concerns the thought processes involved in processing and learning this –
grammatical- knowledge: grammar learning is considered in terms of performance within a
skill-based approach (Newby, 2006). The third issue within these approaches relates to how
knowledge –grammar- may be acquired, by an inductive or a deductive route, the later typically
connected to much traditional grammar teaching but also present in many current classrooms.
Within post-CLT, some of the most commonly applied approaches, Task-based teaching, Focuson-
form teaching and Content-based Instruction, will be considered (Newby, 2006). In general,
all of them consider that modifications in the input and in the interaction processes have to
be combined with explicit grammar teaching (Ortega, 2000:209), or focus-on-form teaching
(Doughty, 2001) to improve competence levels. Before contemplating each in detail, Figure 1
shows their connection with CLT and functional approaches:

35
In order to explain the role of grammar in Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) we have to
mention that there is a strong and a weak version of TBLT. Whereas the strong version does not
deal with grammar teaching at all, the weak or focused-on-form version does include explicit
grammar teaching (Nunan, 2007:93). This distinction is similar to the one about the shallow and
deep-end versions of Communicative Language Teaching mentioned in the previous section.
According to the strong version of TBLT, tasks should be fulfilled with any linguistic means
that are already available for the learners, so that teachers should not bias the tasks in order to
use a specific linguistic structure: this type of task is called unfocused task (Nunan, 2007:97),
which improves learners’ communicative skills but might leave accuracy behind. On the other
hand, the weak, focused-on-form version of Task-Based Language Teaching argues that in order
to make students learn grammar, some focus on form is necessary. Tasks should not be so open
that allow learners to fulfill them with any linguistic means already available but rather, tasks
should bias students so that they will have a need for fulfilling them with a specific linguistic
structure that has been previously presented and practiced; in that way learners would both
improve their communicative skills and their grammatical accuracy. This type of tasks is called
focused tasks.
First, the focus on form would not be presented at the beginning of each task, in a precommunicative
stage (like in the Presentation and Practice stages previous to the Production
stage in the traditional, structural classroom sequence) but rather it can be presented after
providing authentic input, so that the communicative mood of the lesson would not be interrupted.
Second, that focus on form would be complemented with enabling tasks, such as
communicative activities, which make learners manipulate the linguistic forms in a communicative
way, like in a ‘find someone who…’ activity, and which do not stop the communicative mood of
the lesson (Nunan, 2007:24).
Third,in Task Based Language Teaching some grammatical items can be repeated throughout
the syllabus instead of being presented only once, so that there is a constant review of them and
learners will not have the feeling of studying the grammatical items in isolation.
36
So, as a conclusion about the role of grammar in Task-Based Language Teaching, it attempts
to deal with grammar teaching in a way in which the learners’ communicative skills are not
harmed but improved. Thus, grammar is considered as a means towards communication and
not as the end itself.
The second approach mentioned above, Focus-on-Form (Doughty and Williams, 1999), tries
to solve the dichotomy communication versus grammar by introducing some focus on form
within their communicative methodology. Focus-on-form means paying attention to the form, but without going
back to focus-on-forms or traditional teaching (Doughty, 2001).The way in
which this is done is by having a reactive (drawing the students’ attention to their errors in using
grammatical structures that they are supposed to be able to manage correctly already) or a
proactive focus on form (making the learners use problematic structures which do not dominate
yet and check their own performance) and using a sequential (first explicit instruction and then
making them be aware of the different meanings of the structure) or integrated sequence (paying
attention both to form and function at the same time); all this is carried out by using unobtrusive
activities that do not interrupt the communicative mood of the lesson (Doughty and Williams,
1999).Small group interaction tasks with information exchanges, expansions and reformulation techniques
constitute some of the techniques implemented within this methodology, in which
learners are expected to process forms, meaning and use simultaneously. This approach is
strongly influenced by cognitive psychology, with its role for attention, processing constraints,
and working versus long term memory. However, it also follows a constructivist framework, in
which the focus is on the learner and how his/her regulation processes may be affected by the
input modifications (Doughty, 2001).
Finally, regarding Content-Based Instruction (CBI), a method which is pivotal for the
establishment of bilingual programs in schools (for a deeper revision, see Coyle, 2008), the only
restraint that it imposes to teachers is that the syllabus must be organized around a series of topics
(a topic syllabus); apart from that, language teachers have freedom for including different types
of activities and different language teaching philosophies, although Communicative Language
Teaching should have some preference because of the direct influence that this approach exerts
on CBI. So, if the teacher is willing to teach grammar in a communicative way s/he can do some
focus-on-form activities in order to do so, although it has to be borne in mind that the topic of
content must remain central in the teaching process.
The following chart summarizes the teaching philosophy of communicative approaches
about grammar and which resources they use for doing so.:

37
4. The role of grammar in the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages
Grammar has held and continues to hold a central place in language teaching. The zero grammar
approach was flirted with but never really took hold, as is evident in both the current textbook materials
emanating from publishing houses and in current theories of L2 acquisition. There is ample evidence to
demonstrate that teaching grammar works. (Ellis, 2006:102)
Parallel to the development of linguistic theories with a functional view of language and
pedagogical approaches for teaching the second/foreign language reflecting that view –
language for communication-, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages,
CEF for short, also derived from the same Hallidayan perspective of language, although it did not
specifically address or propose a teaching method or a language theory (Morrow, 2004).
In line with the functional framework which served as a basis for CLT, the CEF considers
language in terms of communicative competence or, in other words, as the ability for learners
to use the language. Communicative competence is in turn divided into several areas (linguistic,
sociolinguistic and pragmatic knowledge), although the one we will lay emphasis on is linguistic
competence, which includes lexical, phonological and syntactical knowledge, or, in traditional
terms, vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar. Grammatical competence is defined in the CEF
as follows:
May be defined as knowledge of, and ability to use, the grammatical resources of a language […]
Grammatical competence is the ability to understand and express meaning by producing and recognizing
well-formed phrases and sentences in accordance with these principles (as opposed to memorizing and
reproducing them as fixed formulae).” (Council of Europe, 2001:112-113)

It is NOT a recommended minimal vocabulary and set of structures for language, with some useful hints
on how to use them in situations (…) the grammar and the lexicon is not an end in itself, it is simply a tool
for the performance5 of communicative functions
The CEF did not constitute a teaching method, so either it followed pre-communicative
approaches where grammar was present in the form of notions and functions or, alternatively,
adhered to the Natural approach, in which grammar had no role, as it was considered a detriment
to communication. In the classroom, however, these theories underlying applied linguistics had
not yet influenced traditional teaching practices, which still focused on a drilling or presentationpractice-
production layout.
Grammatical competence is viewed as integral to all language skills, which learners have
38
to master progressively to arrive at a high degree of accuracy, specifically within higher levels
(C1)“(…) consistently maintains a high degree of grammatical accuracy; errors are rare and
difficult to spot” (Council of Europe, 2001:114).
Even though grammar is explicitly mentioned as a competence or integral part of the
language, the grammar that should be attached to any of the descriptors within the CEF depends
on the particular language, and within that language, a range of different grammar items could be
chosen to carry out any given ‘can do’ statement. A basic set of specific grammatical items within
each level descriptor is being currently specified by the Core Inventory6, but additional language
points have to be decided by teachers and syllabus writers, depending on the learners’ needs
and the particular context. Moreover, there is no overt teaching methodology recommended for
that grammar, although most of the post-communicative approaches described above and their
underlying constructivist framework are being currently used in the classroom.
Competence is, following a linguistic perspective and adopting Chomsky’s generativist views
(Chomsky, 1965, as quoted in Westera, 2001:78), “the knowledge and rules that are necessary
to produce speech” whereas performance is “the way speech functions when contaminated
with external factors”. Alternatively, considering a psychological based cognitive framework,
competences can be defined as “higher order cognitive skills and behaviors that represent
the ability to cope with complex, unpredictable situations” (Ramos and Luque, 2010:330). The
adoption of a functional perspective implies measuring competence through performance, that
is to say, assessing inner knowledge with actual behavior. Accepting a cognitive view means
using labels such as competence, skill, ability and can do in an interchangeable way, labels
which are similar but not identical, as they involve different psychological processes. Thus,
both definitions of competence involve their inability to be evaluated (Westera, 2001). Therefore,
syllabus designers, textbook authors and teachers are expected to measure the acquisition of
these competences through a behavior: what has been termed descriptors or learning objectives,
which explain what the learner can do. This is a performance based measure.

A third problem deals with methodology. How should grammar be incorporated in the
teaching and learning process? What notion of teaching and learning should be chosen for the
classroom? Would it focus on accuracy or would it be enough that the learner can do what we
ask, even in an imperfect way? As defined above, grammatical competence is one of the skills
the learners have to master progressively. How can progressive be interpreted in cognitive and
linguistic terms? How would it be measured? For instance, if the learner “can understand the
main points of clear standard input on familiar matters” (see B1 level, above), would it consist
on occasionally understanding, or, rather, knowing about some familiar matters and not about
others?
Fifth, what would the connection be between CEF recommendations and how grammar is
considered in post communicative approaches (see table 1)? As the definition of grammatical
competence asserts, ‘producing and recognizing well-formed phrases’ is considered much more
appropriate than ‘memorizing and reproducing as fixed formulae’. However, memorization as a
learning tool is not a negative strategy, as it has been shown that the learners’ age, learning style
and the teaching methodology influence the type of learning strategies used for learning a language.
Younger learners tend to use memory strategies whereas older ones analyze the language (Luque,
2006). Besides, there is a very positive correlation between verbal memory and language aptitude.
That is to say, the more memory for words learners have, the more probabilities they will have of
becoming successful language learners (García Mayo and García Lecumberri, 2003).

This descriptive view of grammar in context entails that language is for communication, in other
words, for performing. Thus, as long as learners can use the language, becoming skilled at
grammar may involve inductive or deductive processes, presentation-practice-production
39
cycles, understanding, reflecting and using, or exemplification and exploration (Newby, 2006), as
long as it is not an end in itself, but a means for communication. As Gouveia (2006/7) mentions,
the issue, for the CEF, is not the process, but the outcome: being able to use real language.
Methodological decisions on how to do this have been left to those who instruct and have been
doing so for years: teachers.
The important question is not whether teaching and learning grammar is necessary and/or sufficient for
language learning, but whether it helps or not. And my own opinion is that yes, it does help, provided
it is taught consistently as a means to improving mastery of the language, not as an end in itself. (Ur,
1999:77-78)

40
Applying Communicative Methods to
Teaching Grammar: An Experiment
Teacher’s Edition — 16 — March 2004
Can CLT help Vietnamese students learn grammar better than
traditional methods?

Though the design of most of these books is

based on the communicative language teaching (CLT)
approach, many teachers generally still prefer the traditional
method in which grammar rules are taught deductively
(the grammar-translation method). This is due to
many reasons, of which the most noticeable are the traditional
role of language teachers, as well as teachers’
attitudes and experiences.
Traditionally, applying the grammar-translation
method,classes are taught in the mother tongue with little
active use of the foreign language. Grammar rules are
explained in the mother tongue and students are expected
to learn them by heart and then reproduce them.
The teacher is a controller while learners are only passively
involved. The students do as the teacher says so
that they can learn what she knows. This prevents them
from producing their own language Teachers feel more comfortable when using the
grammar-translation method because it is familiar to
them, and thus they feel more confident. If they want to
make a change toward CLT, they may have to cope with
difficulties related to both themselves and their students.
Problems appear when an inexperienced teacher
does activities with unclear instructions or goals.
Ways of introducing the activities. Before a new
activity, teachers should give a brief introduction.
This might be compared to “selling” it to them—attracting
them to the activity in order to increase their
involvement and pleasure.
Another aspect of this is making sure the instructions
are clear. There are numerous ways to ensure this:
giving slow and short directions, having one or some of
the learners demonstrate the task, giving an example
yourself, and asking students if they have any questions
about the task. The instructions should include the
expected duration, what final product
or action is required, and what students can do if they
finish early.
Integrate Grammar Skills Into Activities
During the sample lessons, we observed that some communicative activities can be made more interesting
and useful by adapting them to be more grammar focused. Another factor is that in communicative grammar
lessons, grammar patterns are presented, practiced, and consolidated through practical skills such as reading,
writing, listening, and speaking. These facts should be considered during lesson planning.

41
ELT Methods and Practices
Unit 3.1: Dealing with Grammar in a Communicative Context
Bessie Dendrinos
School of Philosophy
Faculty of English Language and Literature

What is grammar?
•Types of grammar.
•Grammar in the communicative approach.
•Teaching grammar: Main principles (form, meaning and use, the importance of context, giving effective
explanations).

•Approaches to teaching grammar.

•Choosing grammar activities.

Different views of grammar (1/2)

1.Grammar involves the rules of combining words into sentences and the rules for forming words.
2.The grammar of a language consists of the devices that signal structural meanings... that can be described in
physical terms.
3.Grammar includes the study of phonology, syntax and semantics.
4.Grammar is concerned with how words are combined to form utterances which function meaningfully in
different contexts.
5.Grammar involves the rules of how language operates in text, genre and discourse.

Different views of grammar (1/2)

1.Grammar involves the rules of combining words into sentences and the rules for forming words.
2.The grammar of a language consists of the devices that signal structural meanings... that can be described in
physical terms.
3.Grammar includes the study of phonology, syntax and semantics.
4.Grammar is concerned with how words are combined to form utterances which function meaningfully in
different contexts.
5.Grammar involves the rules of how language operates in text, genre and discourse.

Descriptive grammar: provides a precise account of actual usage (how people use language in everyday
communication).

•Prescriptive grammar: attempts to establish rules for the correct use of language.
42
The study of grammar involves the study of individual languages and uses linguistic data as a means of
developing insights into the nature of language. It is dependent on different theories of language and therefore
we have different grammars (functional grammar, structural grammar, tranformational generative grammar etc.)

Pedagogical grammar: Designed specifically for teaching a foreign language or developing awareness of the
mother tongue. It is inherently prescriptive.

•Theoretical grammar: goes beyond the study of individual languages and uses linguistic data as a means of
developing insights into the nature of language and develops categories for linguistic analysis. It presents a
theory of language (functional grammar, universal grammar, transformational generative grammar etc.).

Arguments against
•The study of grammar promotes knowledge about language not how to use the language.

•We acquire our first language without any explicit knowledge of grammar.

•The natural order in which languages are learned precludes the influence of instruction.

•If communicative competence is the goal, then classroom time is better spent engaging in language use
(Krashen, 1981).

Arguments in favour (1/2)

•Without explicit instruction learners’ interlanguage often fossilizes.

•Grammar instruction may act as an advanced organizer helping learners to notice features of language when
they are ready.

•Learning finite rules can help to simplify an otherwise daunting and complex task by organizing it into neat
categories.

Older students’ expectations about language learning often include grammar instruction.

•Learning grammar structures allows for more creative applications of language. (Lightbown & Spada, 1990,
pp. 429-448).

Grammar in the communicative approach (1/5)

•Communication is the be-all and end-all of language learning and grammar is the by-product of this endeavour.

•Grammar is cumulative. It should not be presented in a linear additive fashion but should be regularly revised
and reintroduced (cyclical/spiral approach).

43
The grammatical component of a syllabus is characterised by selectivity. Grammatical items are not included
because they have always been taught but because they can be justified in relation to the type of course, its
length, objectives and student population.

Language should be presented and learnt within a context.

•The relationship between forms and their uses should be made clear to learners.

When presenting new language items, attention should be given to their form, meaning and use.
•Form: how the structure is formed.
•Meaning: what meaning the structure entails (autonomously – not in context)
•Use: how language patterns operate in specific contexts of situation, and specific discourses and texts.
–When or why does a speaker/ writer choose a particular grammar structure over another that could express the
same meaning or accomplish the same purpose?
–When or why does a speaker/ writer vary the form of a particular linguistic structure?

Understanding how language operates at sentence level, does not help learners understand how language is used
purposefully on oral and written discourse.

•It is one thing to be able to understand and create sentences and quite another to be able to put sentences
together and taking into account features of the context to produce socially purposeful meanings.

Current view of teaching/learning grammar also focuses students’ attention at how grammar operates in context
and how discourse and genre determine our linguistic choices.

The rules that determine genres are institutionally bound and determine what kind of language (lexicogrammar)
is appropriate in each instance and how language is organized into text.

44
Text (κείμενο): A piece of writing of a particular discourse and genre which is intended to convey an overall
message and particular bits of information, feelings, attitudes etc.

Grammar is not an abstract system detached from contexts of use.

•Context is the situation or the linguistic and non-linguistic information surrounding the new grammatical form
and results in the new language being used.

Characteristics of context:
•The context should show what the language means and how it is used.

•It should be interesting to students; something that students can relate to.

•It should be simple enough to show the form and rich enough to show the meaning and its use. Too many new
words will distract students; a poor context will not be able to reveal meaning and use.

How about this activity?

•Fairy tale – Little Red Riding Hood.
•Adapt story to suit age/language ability.
•Students listen and understand the story by sequencing pictures.
•Students listen and act out story.
•Focus on the past simple used to sequence the events in the narrative.
•Teacher checks meaning and highlights form.

Presentation: The teacher selects new materials, presents new language items/information in a meaningful
context (dialogue/text), explains new language and makes sure students understand it. This stage helps students
assimilate new facts about the language and produce language for the first time. Focus is on accuracy.

Practice: This stage falls between the two extremes. Students are given opportunity to practise new language
for themselves in meaningful contexts.

•Production: In this stage students are engaged in free, uninhibited communication. Focus is on fluency, on
getting messages across.

A good presentation should be:

•Efficient: The aim is to get to the accurate reproduction and practice stage as soon as the students can
manipulate the new language.

•Lively and interesting: Students must be interested and involved in the presentation; if they are they will
remember the new grammar more easily.

45
Appropriate: However interesting, funny or demonstrative a situation is it should be appropriate to the
language being presented.

•Productive: The situation should allow students to make sentences and/or questions with the new language.
(Harmer, 1987:18)

Characteristics of effective explanations

•The explanation should be clear.

•The explanation should include simple vocabulary.

•The explanation should encourage the active involvement of students.

•The explanation should relate new information to old.

•The explanation should be sequenced clearly and signposted.

Approaches to teaching grammar

•Deductive– teaching through rules (the rule is provided followed by the provision of examples in which the
rule is applied).

•Inductive– teaching through examples (students are provided with several examples from which a rule is
inferred).

Sources of inductive instruction

•Realia/Actions.

•Worksheets (can often be structured to inductively lead students to a grammar rule).

46
•Authentic texts (after listening to a dialogue or reading a text, students can answer questions to highlight
certain grammatical structures– these may then be used to derive rules).

•Dialogues.

•Recorded Conversations.

Inductive grammar teaching

•In the inductive method, the teacher induces the learners to realise grammar rules without any form of
explicit explanation.

•The rules will become evident if the students are given enough appropriate examples.

•The inductive method is more effective in that students discover the grammar rules themselves while engaged
in language use.

Effective grammar instruction (1/2)

Noticing:
•Paying attention to grammar as it occurs in different contexts, e.g. grammar input in lessons, structures in
texts and listening material, language practice activities and spoken interactions.

Noticing the gap: Learners become aware of differences in their performance and L1 competence. For
example, you read something, or hear something about a grammar item which seems to be new to you and
sticks in your mind. In fact, it is probably not new, but you are ‘noticing’ it for the first time. Having ‘noticed’ it
you will see it or hear it regularly and wonder how you could have failed to notice it before.

Practice is necessary
•Teaching through practice:
–Drills: activities that are structured to allow only one correct answer.

–Exercises: Open-ended grammar activities

47
•Practice leads to the creation of a continuum ranging from text manipulation activities to text creation
activities.

Text manipulation activities (1/2)

•Provide students with sentences that they will be required to operate on in some limited manner such as:
–fill-in-the blank,

–make a choice from items provided,

–substitute another item, or

–transform into another pattern.

•Provide students with sentences that they will be required to operate on in some limited manner such as:
–fill-in-the blank,

–make a choice from items provided,

–substitute another item, or

–transform into another pattern.

Provides opportunities for focused practice (restricted to a main grammar area) after language has been
contextualised and form/meaning established.

•Should be enjoyable, meaningful, give students a reason to use the language, full of practice.

1.Focus on meaning, but controlled form.

Find someone who...
...has slept in a cave.____________ .
... has eaten caviar ____________ .
... has visited India ___________ ____________ .
... has been in a car accident ________ .

Text creation activities

•Require learners to produce language creatively using the target structure (these activities are not truly
communicative because the students are aware that the purpose of the activity is to practice a specific structure).

•They offer semi - controlled and freer practice.

•Chance for learners to experiment a little, integrate new language with old and personalise the language.
Students will use the grammar in focus and also other language they know.
48
2.Focus on meaning, semi-controlled form (sentence completion): e.g. Since this time last year, I have ….

3.Focus on meaning, free sentence-making.

e.g. Think of a situation (using the present perfect) that would produce the reaction:
Oh dear! / Wonderful! / What a surprise! Help! Congratulations! / What a relief! / What a pity! / Thank you! /
I’m sorry! / Oh no! / (sigh).

Meaningful practice
•Happens when the focus is on the production, comprehension or exchange of meaning, while the students
“keep an eye on” the way newly learned structures are used in the process.

Tasks for meaningful grammar practice (1/2)

•Jigsaw: learners combine different pieces of information to create a whole.

•Information-Gap: learners have different information. They negotiate to find the other individual’s
information.

•Problem-Solving: students must find a solution for a problem (typically there is one resolution).

Decision-Making: students solve an open-ended problem by discussing multiple options and choosing the best

•Opinion Exchange: learners exchange ideas without needing to come to a consensus

49
BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING AND PRACTICE IN
AN INTRODUCTORY CHINESE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) (2012) incorporated the “5Cs” into the
foreign language teaching standards—communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities.
According to the National Standards for Foreign Language Education (2012), Communication language other
than English is the main goal of the Communication category Although the WL educators and researchers have
presented considerable benefits of using communicative teaching methods, many U.S. language teachers in
elementary, secondary, and higher schools still use English as their medium language and value rote grammar
learning and translation over communication (Burke, 2011).
According to the Modern Language Association survey (2010), the undergraduate Chinese language course
enrollment grew by 18.2% from 2006 to 2009. Chinese became the third fastest growing language in the U.S.
The words “growing”, “expansion” constantly appeared in the articles that talke .
English has been the dominant class language for classroom management and class interaction (Wang &
Kirkpatrick, 2012). “

According to the literature, difficulties in implementing CLT in WL classes include: 1) The specific beliefs
toward language teaching and particular rituals shared by the WL teachers; 2) unfamiliarity with CLT and the
lack of the professional training in CLT for WL (Burke, 2006, 2011, 2012; Cheng, 2002; Savignon, 2002).

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The Major Language Teaching Methods
Language researchers’ understandings about second language acquisition have considerably changed in the past
century (Musumeci, 1997). According to Theisen (2011), world language WL classes 20 years ago were
different from today’s classrooms because of the lack of expectations of language use for communicating with
native speakers of the language. In the literature, linguists and language educators have gradually come to
appreciate the significance of learners’ communicative competence in language teaching and learning. Richards
(2006) stated that early theories about language learning focused mainly on mastery of grammatical
competence. However, Musumeci (1997) revisited traditional language teaching through introducing the second
language teaching theory shared by several educators of 15th, 16th, and17th centuries. When “Foreign”
language learning was synonymous with studying Latin, these educators viewed language as a communicative
system as the goal was to speak, read, and write in Latin.
The top research in language teaching field today discusses the need more frequent use of the target language in
class and the growth of learners’ communicative competence happen in U.S. WL classrooms (Theisen, 2011).
This section contains a brief introduction to some main language teaching methods and approaches in the past
several centuries including: Grammar-translation method, direct method/natural approach, Audio-lingual
method, and communicative language teaching method.
Grammar-translation (G-T) method. At the end of 18th century, teachers emphasized grammatical rules,
memorization of vocabulary, and completing written exercises, which was called as Classical Method, which
gradually was known as G-T Method (Brown, 1994; Chang 2011). The G-T method became a dominant
language teaching method from the 1840s to 1940s in field of European and foreign language teaching as other
language teaching methods were blooming, and the modified version of G-T is still widely utilized in today’s
WL class (Chang, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Instead of encouraging the learners to experiment with the
language, G-T language teachers usually advocate learning sentence structures and complex grammatical rules
instructions. Instead of focusing on oral communication, the G-T method is characterized as relying heavily on
teaching grammar, practicing translation through writing and reading (Chang, 2011; Griffiths & Parr, 2001). In
a typical G-T class, Hadley (1993) reported that learners usually were given grammar rules, bilingual
vocabulary lists, and translating exercises. G-T teachers constantly compare native language of the students
with the target one, and there are few chances for students to speak or listen to the target language (Hadley,
50
1993). The G-T method was criticized by the later linguists and language educators for its heavy emphasis on
rote learning and drills, and providing little opportunities for students to speak or listen to the target language.
Hadley also stated that “the lack of orientation towards proficiency goals is the most obvious drawback of this
method, at least as it is traditionally described” (p. 91).
The direct method and the natural approach. At the end of the 19th century, the natural approach provided
the foundation for the direct method, which later was gradually accepted by some reformers. The natural
approach guided the language teachers to view the second language learning more like the first language
learning (Richards, 2001). Along with the growing distrust of the notion that the words of different languages
could be equivalent in meaning and dissatisfaction with the G-T method, the direct method was developed
initially in an attempt to integrate more target language use into the classroom (Howatt, 2004). Howatt agreed
that the direct method aimed to compensate for the drawbacks of the G-T method by demanding language
learners use the target language in class, and the class was conducted exclusively in the target language. The
underlying belief of this teaching method was that the students learned a language by listening to it intensively,
and this method was mainly based on the way how children learn their native languages through association of
words and phrases with visual objects (Hadley, 1993). Terrell (1977) stated that language learners could
respond in both L1 and L2 when he initiated natural approach teaching, which she believed was to put students
in a secure learning environment. In her explanation of the natural approach, correction to learners’ speech
errors was undesirable. Hadley (1993) viewed that exclusive target language instruction was criticized by the
researchers when the simple, brief explanations in students’ native language could be more efficient. The direct
method could confuse language learners by being constantly exposed to rigid, inaccurate target language
practicing (Hadley,1993; Richards, 2001).
Audio-lingual method. In the 1940s and 1950s, the development of psychological theories and linguistic
research paved the way for the growth of the Audio-lingual Methodology (Hadley, 1993). In Johnson’s (2004)
view, behaviorism dominated the Second Language Acquisition field until the end of the 1960s. At that time,
the most influential psychological theories belonged to behaviorist and neo-behaviorist schools. Meanwhile,
structural, or descriptive, linguistics became the center of linguistic studies thereby emphasizing the importance
of learners’ behaviors in studying procedure, such as language learning oral practices and pattern drills. Thus,
Audio-Lingual Methodology characterized unconsciously internalized language habits through dialogue
memorization and pattern drills (Celce-Murcia & Prator, 1979). Believing that language is a set of habits,
supporters of the Audio-Lingual Method instructed the target language without reference to learners’ mother
tongue (Hadley, 1993). Ignoring learner’s cognitive ability and rigid practices became the main criticism of this
method.

CLT Features
CLT aims to improve learners’ communicative competence through implementing communicative activities
(Burke, 2006, 2010). The main features of CLT will be discussed in this section.
Communicative competence. Theisen (2011) believed some language classrooms in the U.S. had been
transformed to reflect an increasing emphasis on developing students’ communicative competence over the last
several decades. The transformation in WL classrooms coincided with the influences brought by CLT educators
and researchers whose aim was to improve language learners’ communicative competence (Hymes, 1970;
Savignon, 1972, 2002).
Chomsky (1965) introduced the difference between competence and performance, which distinguished his
linguistic theory from sociocultural features. As a response to the limitations of Chomsky’s theory, Hymes
(1972) noticed that Chomsky’s performance idea did not distinguish learners’ actual performance and
underlying rules of performance. As a result, Hymes (1972) developed a broader, more elaborated
communicative competence theory that included “linguistic competence or implicit and explicit knowledge of
the rules of grammar, and contextual or sociolinguistic knowledge of the rules of language use in context”
(Yano, 2003, p. 76).

51
Savignon (2002) gave a relatively clear and comprehensive framework for communicative competence
consisting of grammatical, discourse, strategic, and sociolinguistic competences. The following section explains
the four components of communicative competence.
Grammatical competence. In CLT, grammatical competence was viewed as the ability to use language rules in
speech, expression, and negotiation of meaning (Savignon, 2002). Savignon (2002) defined grammatical
competence as the ability to identify the language’s lexical, morphological, syntactical, and phonological
features and to utilize all of these components to organize sentences in the target language. In contrast with
common misconceptions of CLT, supporters of CLT value improving learners’ grammatical competence in
their learning processes (Burke, 2006; Thompson, 1996).
Savignon (1991) stated that interpersonal communication would not occur without sentence form, structure, or
“a set of shared assumptions about how language works”, and speakers’ willingness to participate in meaning
negotiation (p. 268).
Additionally, CLT teachers pay equal attention to L2 learners’ four aspects of communicative competence
(Burke, 2006). Canale and Swain (1980) concluded from their three linguistic studies that focusing mostly on
grammatical competence in the classroom was not a sufficient condition for the improvement of students’
communicative competence. In other words, language learners’ grammatical competence was not a good
predictor of their communicative competence.
Discourse competence. Savignon (2002) and Richards and Rodgers (2001) explained discourse competence as
the learners’ ability to connect individual sentences to develop a paragraph. ACTFL (2012) described language
learners’ proficiency in five major levels of proficiency: Distinguished, Superior, Advanced, Intermediate, and
Novice. ACTFL also included specific standards for the language speakers’ discourse competence in the
proficiency. According to ACTFL, a speaker’s discourse competence was a good indicator of a speaker’s
language proficiency level.

Sociocultural competence. Second language learners need to identify certain knowledge about the cultural
context of the language they are studying. As a response to Chomsky’s (1965) undue emphasis on abstract
grammatical knowledge in second language acquisition, Hymes (1972) proposed a theory of language
competence, which included the ability to use language appropriately within a cultural context. To further
Hymes’ theory on communicative competence, Canale and Swain (1980) included sociolinguistic competence,
which initially combined sociocultural rules of use with rules of discourse, as one of three components in the
communicative competence framework. They stated that the primary consideration in using these sociocultural
rules should be given to appropriate use of certain propositions and communicative functions within a given
sociocultural context based on factors like topics, participants’ roles, settings, and norms of interaction. The
definition of sociocultural competence, described by Savignon (2002), was a broader theory than sociolinguistic
competence identified in Canale and Swain’s(1980) research. In Savignon’s (2002) perspective, sociocultural
competence requires language speakers to possess knowledge about the social context in which the language is
used. Thus, sociocultural competence helps language learners know how to use and respond to language
appropriately in given settings and conversation.
Strategic competence. In developing strategic competence, second language learners use communication
strategies to compensate for the learners’ unfamiliarity with the language rules as they engage in conversation.
Savignon (2002) explained strategic competence as the ability of the language learners to solve the difficulties
caused by their lack of understanding of grammatical rules and cultural context. Strategic competence may
compensate for second language learners’ insufficient competence in grammar, sociocultural, and discourse. In
other words, the development of strategic competence contributes to speakers’ overall communicative
competence. (Savignon, 2002)
Researchers classified two types of strategic competence in the language teaching field:
reduction or avoidance strategies and achievement strategies (Ellis, 1985; Faerch & Kasper, 1983). Reduction
or avoidance strategies involve adjusting one’s message to low-level word expressions. Faerch and Kasper
(1983) explained that language learners sometimes say what they can, but not what they want to because of
their lack of language knowledge. Unlike reduction or avoidance strategies, Faerch and Kasper explained that
52
achievement strategies could be either co-operative or non-co-operative, and learners’ meanings are expressed
by alternative ways like non-verbal language. The co-operative achievement strategy refers to learners’ desire to
be helped by conversation partners when asking direct questions (like “what do you call…?”) about unfamiliar
expressions or using indirect actions (like pauses, eye gaze, etc) as signals for help (Dornyei & Thurrell, 1991).
In Xue’s (2013) research on Chinese graduate students’ communicative competence in U.S. higher education
institutions, achievement strategies contributed more than reduction strategies to language learners’
communicative competence.
Communicative activities. Burke (2010) introduced 10 techniques for language teachers to use to promote
communication in the target language in the language classrooms. One of the suggestions was to integrate
communicative activities in the world language classroom. According to Nunan (1989), communication task
was defined as task that “involve the learner in comprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the
target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form” (p. 10). As Ellis and
Shintani (2013) described, task-based language teaching allows the L2 learners to engage “in meaningful
meaning-focused communication through the performance of tasks” so that their communicative competence is
enhanced (p. 135). Negotiation of meaning helps language learners focus on conveying meaning rather than
worrying about the accuracy of their production.

Grammar instruction in CLT. Thompson (1996) identified the four most widespread misconceptions among
language teachers, including the most persistent misunderstanding: that CLT means no grammar teaching. Most
concerns about CLT focus on the students’ accuracy of the language forms (Thompson, 1996). In Cang’s (2011)
research, the reason why CLT was not widely used in Taiwan was because teachers believed that CLT
encouraged language learners make grammatical errors, and some CLT practices “may lead to fossilization of
learner’s errors (p. 17).” In contrast with this widespread misconception, many linguists and methodologists
who support CLT acknowledged the importance of grammar instruction in the second language classroom.
Savignon (1991) asserted that communicative teaching and learning would never take place without the forms,
structures, and a shared sense of language accuracy, along with the participants’ willingness to collaborate in
meaning negotiation. Canale and Swain (1980) extended this notion of grammatical competence within a
communicative competence context when they suggested that grammatical competence should be an essential
concern for any communicative approach whose aim is to allow language learners to “express accurately the
literal meaning of utterances” (p. 30).

In Savignon (1991)’s research, results from a study indicated that the meaning-focused exercises contributes to
language learners’ communicative ability, and learners concentrate the best on grammar instruction when it
relates to learners’ negotiation needs. Burke (2006, 2011) has suggested implicit grammar instruction occurs
more often than explicit grammar teaching in CLT classrooms. Learners must apply language rules during
negotiation of meaning in practical communicative contexts (Burke, 2006, 2011). Additionally, in CLT
classrooms, explicit grammar teaching should appear after learners have expressed their grammar needs in
communicative behaviors (Burke, 2006, 2007; Savignon, 1991). Ellis (1997) also suggested learners acquire
implicit language forms through noticing, comparing, and integrating language to make it understandable rather
than only through form-centered grammatical instruction.

The Barriers Impeding Implementation of CLT

From the literature, there seems to be a disconnect between second language acquisition research and what
really occurs in the language teaching class.
Limited implementation and research of CLT classrooms. Although second language research studies have
shown the benefits of CLT for more than 40 years, the G-T approach still dominates U.S. language teaching and
many U.S. WL teachers still mainly utilize English as the medium in instruction (Burke, 2006, 2011, 2012). In
Burke’s studies, using native language and focusing on language accuracy in class is especially common in
beginning and intermediate-level language classes.

53
Conventional wisdom and deep structure. Burke (2011) studied the barriers held by WL teachers regarding
implementation of CLT methods. She believes that the conventional wisdom and deep structure, shaped from
WL teachers’ personal educational experiences, tend to emphasize rote grammar learning and translation. In her
study, these WL teachers taught reading, writing, listening, and speaking as separate skills. The teachers’
ultimate goal of teaching WL, in the 21st century, was to facilitate mastery of the language and promote
grammatical accuracy in their students. Burke (2011) characterized the deep structure practices valued by
language teachers as the use of translation when introducing new vocabulary lists, intense and independent
grammar practice, insufficient involvement of cultural elements, and use of the first language as the medium of
instruction.
Summary
Various language teaching philosophies and theories have been involved in language teaching and learning in
the past centuries worldwide. Accuracy-based instruction was recommended to be gradually replaced by
communicative teaching, which is the method characterized by meaning-based tasks, communicative
interaction, and meaningful negotiation in the language. The later one aims to promote language learners’
communicative competence.
Contextualization. After being presented with the explicit grammar point and vocabulary, then students would
engage in short conversations with the instructor or a partner. And, then students would come up with new
sentences by using the new words and the correct grammar. This practice would allow students to learn the
language accuracy and new vocabulary. Two types of interactions were observed: “Come up with examples”
and “imitating conversation”. Spontaneous language output from the learners occurred in the later kind of
interaction. For example, the students learned the sentence structure “when someone does something, I am
doing...” by being asked to answer the teacher’s question-“When I called you, what were you doing?” The
interaction was in Chinese, and the student would be expected to answer the question by using the taught
sentence structure.
Instructor’s target language use. For most of the class time, Dr. Wang spoke Chinese to the students. She
would read the new vocabulary in Chinese, and in most of her conversations with students were in Chinese.
Furthermore, she would model how to say a sentence with new grammar rules and vocabulary. Then, the
students usually repeated the sentences first. In the contextualization part, which lasted for 10-15 minutes, Dr.
Wang and the students used the target language most often. Dr. Wang asked students questions in Chinese in
turn and students would answer the questions with correct vocabulary and grammar rules.
English was used by Dr. Wang for further clarify the grammar rules or some exceptions.
Communicative activity. Communication task or communicative activities are often used to help the students
improve linguistic competence through students-centered meaning negotiation between the students in class.
Communication was defined by Nunan (1989) as “involve learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing
or interacting in the language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than for from”
(p.10). Some instructional suggestions were given by the researcher for the purpose of implementing
communicative activities in the class. The instructor integrated more communicative activities, which increased
student-student interactions, and allowed for more target language output from the students. A more active
language learning atmosphere was also observed by the researcher.
to expect along the learning and the certain patterns that the teacher can follow provided her the security in
teaching.
What methods did the instructor use prior to getting feedback? World language teachers often use a
combination of language teaching methods in their classrooms (Gallagher, 2011).
Burke (2011) found that most WL teachers value certain deep structure practices that emphasize translation,
grammatical accuracy, and correct pronunciation, and believe they are important to language learning. Dr.
Wang used several of these deep structure practices in her teaching to promote optimal learning of Chinese.
Additionally, the translation quiz was a motivation for the students to memorize the vocabulary and practice
writing characters outside of the classroom. Students also were asked to memorize the pronunciation and the
orthography of the vocabulary. Explicit grammar instruction was conducted, and it was followed by students’
intense practice of applying the grammar in their newly created sentences. The grammatical knowledge was
54
presented in English, and the English syntactic terms were utilized in the grammar instruction for further
clarifying the rules. After giving the grammar and examples, the language learners practiced to make sentences
with the grammar knowledge in Chinese, which provided the most opportunity on target language use to the
students in class.

55
La gramática en la clase de ELE
Consideraciones sobre su valor en la enseñanza y cómo presentarla
Susana Lugo;Leonor Quintana

La gramática puede ser entendida como una disciplina científica. Según la tradición, la gramática conforma
el estudio de la morfología y la sintaxis, como asegura Theodor Lewandowski1 "campo dentro de la
lingüística que investiga la constitución y variación de la palabras, grupos de palabras, frases, pero que no
toma en consideración la fonética, la fonología, como tampoco la semántica y la formación de palabras".
Otros estudiosos tienen una visión más amplia; para Lázaro Carreter2 “puede considerarse integrada por la
Fonología y Fonética, la Morfología, La Sintaxis y la Lexicología.", mientras que Gómez Torrego3 vincula
además la semántica a su medio de acción:
“(…) según algunos gramáticos, la Gramática comprende sólo la Morfología y la Sintaxis; según otros,
abarca también el plano fónico, es decir, el de los sonidos y los fonemas. (…) La Semántica, rama
lingüística que se ocupa de los significados, no es una parte de la Gramática, pero se tiene en cuenta
para el control de los procedimientos formales que se aplican en la Sintaxis y para la explicación de
muchos fenómenos sintácticos (…)”.
Asimismo, se denomina bajo este término, al "conjunto de reglas y principios que determinan el modo como
se combinan las unidades de dicha lengua para formar unidades lingüísticas mayores. En algunas teorías
lingüísticas modernas, como la gramática generativa transformacional, la gramática se concibe como el
conocimiento, generalmente inconsciente, que los hablantes de una lengua poseen sobre estas reglas"4. Es
decir, gramática es el sistema de reglas que subyace al funcionamiento de la lengua, pero asimismo refiere
la capacidad innata que tiene el hombre para actualizar esas normas, es decir, el conocimiento inconsciente
que tiene el hablante en su propia lengua y que da cuenta de la competencia gramatical adquirida, en virtud
de lo que el generativismo llamaba Language Adquisition Device (LAD).
A veces el término refiere las diferentes teorías lingüísticas (gramática funcional, generativa, cognitiva,
pragmática) que enmarcan las concepciones del lenguaje, pues los modelos teóricos en los que se basaron
los estudiosos a partir del siglo pasado han ido dando paso a diferentes acercamientos a la teoría de la
gramática. De este modo, por ejemplo, las teorías estructuralistas de Saussure (1916) dieron base a las
funciones como cimiento metodológico de la gramática funcional (Martinet, Dik, Alarcos Llorach).

Los primeros gramáticos, los de la antigua Grecia, entendieron la gramática como el arte de la palabra, el
arte de hablar y escribir bien (γραμματική τέχνη; gramma "letra" y tekne "arte"), y de ahí que la gramática
tradicional siga siendo deudora de esta tendencia didáctico-normativa. Este mismo modelo teórico, la idea
de preservar la pureza de la lengua, comparte la gramática normativa la cual establece las formas correctas
y prescribe las reglas para el uso del idioma, esto es, nos muestra cómo debe ser la lengua. Frente a ella,
tenemos la gramática descriptiva que nos explica cómo es de hecho la lengua, pues nos describe las
construcciones de uso generalizado en un estadio determinado de la lengua.
Atendiendo al objeto de estudio, podemos encontrar bajo la denominación de gramática, obras o métodos
que analizan fenómenos de un momento dado de la lengua (gramática sincrónica) o estudian las
transformaciones a lo largo del tiempo (gramática histórica), que comparan dos o más lenguas diferentes
(gramática comparativa), etc. Otro aspecto a tener en cuenta es el destinatario o la finalidad para la cual
han sido redactados, si

56
Figura 1: Valores del concepto de gramática (L. Díaz- Mª.J. Hernández, 1993:86)

No debe pasarnos desapercibido que el conocimiento gramatical del profesor de ELE debe sustentarse tanto
en el dominio de la gramática teórica como en los aportes de la gramática didáctico-pedagógica y en el
propio instinto sobre la lengua (materna o no, para el caso de los profesores no nativos).
2. GRAMÁTICA L1 VS. GRAMÁTICA L2
Como hemos referido anteriormente, el hablante nativo tiene un conocimiento gramatical de carácter
intuitivo, inconsciente, y por eso no necesita una enseñanza explícita para reconocer si un enunciado es
gramatical o no; sabe lo que significan las formas y de ahí que no dude al tener que utilizar ser/estar,
por/para, traer/llevar. En el sistema escolar, a los alumnos nativos se les enseña gramática desde un punto
de vista taxonómico, realizan análisis de la gramática, se les instruye para adecuar sus enunciados a la
norma, esto es, adquieren un conocimiento declarativo del idioma5.
¿Pasa lo mismo con los alumnos no nativos? Pues no, porque el deseo de un alumno cuando decide
aprender una lengua extranjera no es solo saber sobre la lengua sino primordialmente saber la lengua para
poder comunicarse usando dicha lengua.
A los alumnos no nativos se les enseña gramática para que puedan comunicarse en la lengua objeto de
estudio, para alcanzar primordialmente un conocimiento instrumental. Se trata de un objetivo funcional,
pues cualquier persona que aprende una lengua extranjera lo hace para poder resolver situaciones que
puede encontrar en su vida cotidiana, laboral, académica: entender lo que dice un periódico o un telediario,
comprar algo, etc. Como el papel de la gramática está supeditado a estas acciones comunicativas, la
gramática viene a ser una herramienta por medio de la cual los alumnos pueden comunicarse en la lengua
extranjera que están aprendiendo, esto es, les sirve para desarrollar su competencia comunicativa.

Su objetivo es saber la lengua, no saber sobre la lengua únicamente. Pero para poder adquirir esa competencia
comunicativa, componente esencial de la misma es la competencia gramatical.
Según el MCER, Marco Común Europeo de Referencia para las Lenguas (2002:110), la competencia
gramatical es "la capacidad para comprender y expresar significados expresando y reconociendo frases y
57
oraciones bien formadas, (como opuesto a su memorización y reproducción en fórmulas fijas)". La
competencia gramatical es el conocimiento de los recursos gramaticales de la lengua pero también la
capacidad para utilizarlos.
Por tanto, existe una gran diferencia entre enseñar una L1 y una L2 pues las características y necesidades de
los alumnos nativos y no nativos son distintas, amén de las diferencias que existen entre la adquisición o el
aprendizaje de una lengua. Los estudiantes nativos ya han interiorizado la lengua de manera inconsciente,
mientras que los estudiantes de una lengua extranjera tienen que hacerlo de manera consciente y
secuenciada, además de que requieren ser instruidos en la forma al tiempo que en sus usos.
2.1. Gramática y competencia comunicativa
Fue con la llegada de
los enfoques comunicativos en los años 70, basados en una concepción funcional del lenguaje (Halliday
1970, Hymes 1972, Widdowson 1978), que la gramática deja de ser considerada como el elemento esencial
en la enseñanza de una lengua para pasar a considerarse como un medio para expresar significados y
permitir la comunicación.
Dell Hymes en 1966 (Llobera, 1995:27-47), profundizando en los conceptos de competencia y actuación6
propuestos por Chomsky en 1965, advirtió que para construir mensajes adecuados, el hablante debía tener
en cuenta asimismo conocimientos situacionales, sociolingüísticos, culturales, pragmáticos, discursivos y
textuales.
Es así que a principios de la década de los setenta del s. XX, proponen los primeros etnógrafos de la
comunicación (Gumperz, Hymes) la noción de competencia comunicativa, la cual definen como la capacidad
de una persona para realizar eficazmente el proceso de comunicación, esto es, distinguir cuándo es
adecuado hablar o guardar silencio, qué decir, a quién dirigirse y cómo. Para estos teóricos, la competencia
comunicativa se adquiere a través de un proceso de socialización porque el hablante es capaz de establecer
una comunicación efectiva y emitir mensajes adecuados a la situación gracias a su conocimiento de los roles
sociales y a su integración en una comunidad lingüística determinada, dado que está condicionada
socioculturalmente.
Todos ellos coinciden en que la competencia comunicativa se constituye
de una serie de (sub)competencias que el hablante de una lengua debe adquirir y desarrollar, aunque
difieran en las subdivisiones o etiquetas de esas competencias.
Punto de referencia teórico para el constructo de la competencia comunicativa es el trabajo de Canale y Swain
(1980), después ampliado por Canale (1983), en el que la subdivide en cuatro componentes o subcategorías: la
competencia gramatical, la sociolingüística, la discursiva y la estratégica.
Figura 2. Modelo de c. comunicativa según Canale (1983)

M. Canale (1983) describe la competencia gramatical como aquella que «se centra directamente en el
conocimiento y la habilidad requeridos para comprender y expresar adecuadamente el sentido literal de las
expresiones» (LLobera, 1995:66-69). Este conocimiento lingüístico abarca el vocabulario, formación de
palabras, estructuración de oraciones, pronunciación, semántica y ortografía.
El MCER, por su parte, también describe la competencia comunicativa con otra estructura, en él la competencia
comunicativa está compuesta por la competencia lingüística, la sociolingüística y la pragmática. La
competencia
lingüística en este documento engloba un concepto amplio pues está integrada por seis componentes: la
competencia léxica, la gramatical, la semántica, la fonológica, la ortográfica y la ortoépica. Esta subdivisión de
competencias, no obstante, restringe la (sub)competencia gramatical a la sintaxis y la morfología.

Actualmente, el concepto de gramática en la didáctica de las lenguas, dice M. Peris (1998) “tiende a integrar las
reglas del sistema y las de uso […] así como a integrar el tratamiento de los fenómenos de los diversos niveles
de la lengua (fonético-fonológicos, morfosintácticos y léxico semánticos) en su descripción y en su tratamiento
didáctico”.

58
En definitiva, el concepto de competencia comunicativa cambia la forma de entender la lengua pues ya no se
concibe como un código abstracto sino como un sistema de comunicación real que es actualizado por el
hablante en un contexto concreto, incluyendo tanto el conocimiento como la propia habilidad para su uso.
Esto conlleva un cambio asimismo en el objetivo de trabajo de la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras, pues a

A partir de entonces se enseña la lengua con el fin de que el alumno consiga una competencia comunicativa
eficaz en la lengua que aprende, es decir, que conozca tanto el sistema como su uso en distintas situaciones
y contextos. Hablamos ahora de una gramática para la comunicación, una gramática comunicativa.

La competencia comunicativa abarca la competencia gramatical, e independientemente de la clasificación o

etiquetas que sigamos, una implicación obvia de estas subdivisiones de la macrocompetencia comunicativa
es que una enseñanza basada exclusivamente en la instrucción del sistema gramatical no favorece el
desarrollo de la competencia comunicativa, pues se olvidan las otras. La competencia gramatical debe
obligatoriamente integrarse con las demás competencias. No obstante, lo que sí podríamos argumentar es
que si bien todos los componentes son relevantes, la (sub)competencia gramatical o lingüística es básica, en
el sentido de que sin un cierto dominio del léxico y las reglas gramaticales no es posible la comunicación
verbal, porque el dominio de sus recursos es necesario para desarrollar la competencia sociolingüística,
discursiva, estratégica. Es por ello que la gramática se encuentra siempre presente en el aula de ELE, en
todos los niveles y en todas las actividades o tareas.

3. GRAMÁTICA Y ADQUISICIÓN DE LA LENGUA

En las décadas que van entre los años 50 a los 70, cuando el campo del aprendizaje de lenguas se basaba en
las teorías de la psicología conductista, se pensaba que la adquisición de un conocimiento se producía
mediante la formación de hábitos, por repetición del mismo estímulo que provoca la misma respuesta.
Skiner (1952) concibe que el proceso de adquisición de una lengua segunda es fruto de la imitación y el
reforzamiento. Este modelo conductual de estímulo-respuesta-refuerzo, se reflejó en el diseño de métodos
estructurales que se proponían favorecer la adquisición de hábitos lingüísticos automáticos, usando
determinadas estructuras lingüísticas.
Con las nuevas teorías sobre la naturaleza del lenguaje (innatismo7), los aportes del análisis de errores y el
establecimiento de la interlengua, se va superando el modelo conductista. La diferencia chomskiana entre
competencia y actuación pone las bases para un cambio en el concepto de lengua, que ahora se concibe
como un instrumento de comunicación, siendo a partir de entonces el objetivo de la enseñanza de LE que los
alumnos alcancen una competencia comunicativa plena. Esto hace que en la práctica pedagógica se empiece
a prestar más relevancia a la funcionalidad de la lengua y la contextualización, a las características y
necesidades del alumno, a los procesos y procedimientos, etc.
Frente al modelo innatista aparecen los modelos cognitivos, que consideran que el conocimiento lingüístico
del hablante presenta una relación intrínseca entre la forma de usarlo y su representación mental. El
59
cognitivismo concibe la adquisición de la lengua como un proceso de aprendizaje basado en la percepción, la
memoria, el procesamiento de la información y los mecanismos de resolución de problemas, es decir,
basado en las mismas habilidades en las que se basa la construcción de cualquier conocimiento o habilidad.
3.1. Tipos de conocimiento gramatical
El cognitivismo distingue entre el conocimiento declarativo y el conocimiento procedimental, aquel
consiste en saber algo y este en saber hacer algo. Todos los nativos cuentan con este conocimiento
procedimental o instrumental, que es el que les permite hacer cosas con la lengua: pedir una información,
dar una orden, etc., aunque no siempre puedan reconocer las reglas que subyacen a ese uso, pues para
adquirir el conocimiento declarativo requiere de instrucción o estudio. Martín Peris (1998) aduce a esta
dicotomía el hecho de que algunos alumnos, si bien son capaces de realizar a la perfección baterías de
ejercicios gramaticales, luego no pueden utilizar esas mismas formas en su comunicación espontánea de
forma correcta. Se trata de alumnos que han adquirido un conocimiento declarativo (saben cosas sobre la
lengua), que no han desarrollado como procedimental (no saben hacer cosas con ella).

Muy próximo a este par de conceptos está el de conocimiento explícito y conocimiento implícito de la
gramática. El conocimiento gramatical explícito es el que se forma tras el análisis consciente de las reglas y
estructuras y permite al hablante explicar un fenómeno gramatical o el uso de alguna expresión. El aprendiz
de español recibe este conocimiento en sus clases, a través de las explicaciones del profesor, de los libros y
manuales, de las gramáticas... El conocimiento gramatical implícito, por su parte, es de carácter intuitivo, es
el que actualiza el hablante al usar la lengua de forma espontánea e inmediata. El hablante no nativo cuenta
con ese conocimiento gramatical implícito de la lengua meta cuando la usa, conocimiento que irá
aumentando conforme va adquiriendo mayor dominio de la lengua que aprende.
El profesor de lengua extranjera debe saber de la existencia de estos dos tipos de conocimiento gramatical,
el explícito y el implícito, ya que para que sus alumnos interaccionen en la lengua meta necesitan contar con
estos dos conocimientos, y es tarea del profesor el saber cómo activarlos mediante la dinámica de
actividades que se realizan en el aula. Según Baralo (1996) esto se logra “a través del uso, de la práctica con
necesidades comunicativas, de la interacción y de la negociación”. Así pues, el profesor en el aula deberá
combinar estas dos formas de conocimiento para conseguir que sus alumnos aprendan conscientemente
unas normas que aplicarán inconscientemente en situaciones de comunicación.

Figura 2. Relación entre gramática y conocimientos gramaticales (Gómez del Estal, 2004)
La importancia de estos dos conocimientos para el aprendizaje de la competencia gramatical viene
corroborada, como apunta Gómez del Estal (2004) “por los resultados que arrojan las investigaciones
realizadas (Ellis,1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1991 y Long, 1991) sobre la relación entre la enseñanza de la
gramática y el conocimiento gramatical:”

5 La investigación de los últimos años sobre la didáctica de la lengua materna en el contexto escolar promulga
la

60
necesidad de redimensionar la metodología de enseñanza y la concepción sobre el propio objeto de aprendizaje.
Se
aboga, al igual que en la enseñanza de LE/LS, por un conocimiento gramatical al servicio de una habilidad
comunicativa
más efectiva, que tenga en cuenta los usos, etc. Para el caso de España, una muestra de estos estudios los
encontramos
en el tomo monográfico sobre "La enseñanza de la gramática en la educación obligatoria" de la revista Textos,
nº 67,
2014.

La enseñanza de la gramática contribuye a un aprendizaje más rápido y con niveles superiores de

precisión gramatical en las producciones lingüísticas de los alumnos/as (Long, 1983; Pica, 1983).
La enseñanza explícita de estructuras gramaticales concretas se transforma necesariamente en
conocimiento gramatical implícito (Pienemann, 1989).
La práctica de la gramática a través de ejercicios no se transforma necesariamente en conocimiento
gramatical implícito (Ellis, 1993).
La enseñanza explícita tiende a generar conocimiento implícito cuando se halla ligada a
oportunidades naturales de comunicación (Spada, 1987).

En consecuencia, el fin último de la enseñanza de una lengua extranjera consiste en que los aprendientes
puedan comunicarse en la L2 recurriendo lo máximo posible al conocimiento implícito, es decir, que lleguen
a manejar la lengua de forma espontánea. En cuanto a la gramática, concretamente, lo que permite ese trasvase
de conocimiento implícito y explícito al uso, no es otra cosa que la práctica de la lengua en
situaciones de comunicación real. Entre otras cosas, porque algunas reglas gramaticales se entienden mejor
si se utilizan en contextos significativos.

3.2. Gramática de la interlengua.

El proceso de aprendizaje supone una superación continua de los conocimientos adquiridos que posibilita al
alumno ir acercándose progresivamente hacia el sistema de la lengua objeto de estudio. Con la información
explícita e implícita que recibe, el alumno infiere una serie de hipótesis sobre cómo funciona el sistema y
crea sus propias reglas (comer> yo como; tener> yo teno), reglas que luego al aplicarlas en su práctica puede
verificar. Si comprueba que la regla que ha establecido no es correcta, deberá reajustar su hipótesis, y
mediante este procedimiento de ensayo y error se va conformando la gramática de la interlengua.

Así pues, el sistema lingüístico que tiene interiorizado el alumno y que utiliza para comunicarse, es un
sistema propio que se va reajustando continuamente y que, sin duda, difiere del de la lengua que está
aprendiendo. A este sistema se le conoce como interlengua. Se trata de un continuo proceso de reajuste (de
ahí que reaparezcan determinados errores cuando ya se consideraban aprendidos) y ese carácter variable, esos
continuos avances y retrocesos que experimenta la interlengua de los aprendices, permite afirmar que
“el aprendizaje de la gramática no es lineal y acumulativo, sino más bien un proceso global, que va
integrando progresivamente conocimientos” (Pastor, 2006:226).
Esto ha venido a demostrar que el error es un mecanismo indispensable para que se produzca el
aprendizaje y de ahí que en las últimas décadas haya cambiado el concepto que se tenía del mismo. Esta
nueva valoración del error nace a partir de la década de los sesenta del s. XX, cuando principia la disciplina
de la Adquisición de Lenguas Extranjeras, gracias a los estudios sobre el análisis de errores y el
establecimiento de la interlengua (Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1972). El artículo de Corder contribuye a que se
conciba el error como algo natural en el aprendizaje de una segunda lengua. Afirma que es un elemento
imprescindible dado que nos indica justamente que el aprendizaje se está produciendo, pues el error
constituye una evidencia positiva de que el alumno está interiorizando el proceso de formación de reglas,
elaborando hipótesis sobre su configuración y aplicándolas al actuar lingüísticamente para comprobar su
61
vigencia.
M. Baralo (1996) describe la interlengua en los siguientes términos.
Se trata de un sistema lingüístico interiorizado que evoluciona, tornándose cada vez más complejo.
Este sistema es diferente del de la lengua materna (aunque se encuentren en él algunas huellas) y del
de la lengua objeto: no se puede considerar como una mezcla de uno y otro, ya que contiene reglas
que le son propias: cada aprendiente o grupo de aprendientes posee, en un estadio de su aprendizaje,
un sistema específico.
Hemos de destacar que si bien se encuentra en continua evolución hasta ir acercándose sus formas y
estructuras a las de la lengua meta, no obstante, también es sistemático, de ahí la importancia que tiene
para el profesor analizar las características de la interlengua de sus alumnos. Es una fuente de información
para el profesor, que así podrá saber dónde centrar su ayuda para que el alumno supere esa fase o estadio.
¿Quiere esto decir que no debemos prestar atención al error, sobre todo cuando no dificulta la
comunicación? Rotundamente no. Pensemos, además, que un error que no se corrige a tiempo puede
fosilizarse.
Además de los estudios de la psicolingüística acerca del proceso de adquisición del lenguaje, ha influido en
esta cuestión, la relación existente entre las distintas teorías gramaticales y la enseñanza de la lengua. En el
devenir de la historia, cada método se ha basado en una teoría lingüística determinada la cual ha
influenciado sobre su forma específica de entender la enseñanza de la gramática (Pastor, 2006:222-224) y
así, de parte medular de la instrucción en el método de gramática/traducción (con una perspectiva
normativa, deductiva y explícita), y también central en el método audiolingual (ahora una gramática más
descriptiva, implícita e inductiva), se llega a un enfoque comunicativo que en sus inicios no consideraba a la
gramática como un elemento esencial.
Hoy en día, no obstante, parece superada esta controversia entre gramática sí-gramática no. El enfoque
comunicativo ha aceptado la importancia de la gramática en la enseñanza de las lenguas (Gómez del Estal,
2004) y los más recientes estudios sobre adquisición de lenguas vienen a refrendar que la instrucción en
gramática “parece tener un efecto positivo sobre la rapidez del aprendizaje y los niveles finales de dominio
lingüístico, aunque el efecto es muy limitado en cuanto a la secuencia natural de adquisición y al nivel de
precisión gramatical alcanzada en determinadas estructuras” (Cadierno, 1995).

Además de los estudios de la psicolingüística acerca del proceso de adquisición del lenguaje, ha influido en
esta cuestión, la relación existente entre las distintas teorías gramaticales y la enseñanza de la lengua. En el
devenir de la historia, cada método se ha basado en una teoría lingüística determinada la cual ha
influenciado sobre su forma específica de entender la enseñanza de la gramática (Pastor, 2006:222-224) y
así, de parte medular de la instrucción en el método de gramática/traducción (con una perspectiva
normativa, deductiva y explícita), y también central en el método audiolingual (ahora una gramática más
descriptiva, implícita e inductiva), se llega a un enfoque comunicativo que en sus inicios no consideraba a la
gramática como un elemento esencial.
Hoy en día, no obstante, parece superada esta controversia entre gramática sí-gramática no. El enfoque
comunicativo ha aceptado la importancia de la gramática en la enseñanza de las lenguas (Gómez del Estal,
2004) y los más recientes estudios sobre adquisición de lenguas vienen a refrendar que la instrucción en
gramática “parece tener un efecto positivo sobre la rapidez del aprendizaje y los niveles finales de dominio
lingüístico, aunque el efecto es muy limitado en cuanto a la secuencia natural de adquisición y al nivel de
precisión gramatical alcanzada en determinadas estructuras” (Cadierno, 1995).

La cuestión radica, más bien, en cómo y para qué enseñamos la gramática, y lo más importante, a quién,
pues siempre se han de tener en cuenta las características y necesidades de nuestros alumnos. De hecho, es
evidente que no se tratará igual el componente gramatical con niños o inmigrantes analfabetos; diferentes
necesidades tendrá un alumno que quiere aprender la lengua porque en dos meses se va de vacaciones a un
país hispanohablante que uno que quiere superar un examen de certificación de lenguas.

62
En el devenir histórico de la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras se han ido sucediendo distintos métodos y
enfoques metodológicos y en cada uno de ellos el papel de la gramática ha sido diferente. Con la llegada de
las corrientes cognitivistas, que entienden el conocimiento como un proceso de construcción creativa, el
foco de atención pasa de ser la estructura lingüística a ser la comunicación. La enseñanza se entiende como
un proceso comunicativo y las actividades que se llevan al aula reflejan el concepto de lengua como
instrumento de comunicación.
Los enfoques comunicativos aplican ambos conceptos:
entienden el aprendizaje como un proceso cuyo objetivo es
la comunicación. La lengua deja de verse como una materia
de estudio, como algo abstracto y teórico, para convertirse
en algo más cercano al alumno, más práctico. Ahora la
lengua se entiende como el medio que les permite
interaccionar en su mundo vivencial: escribir un sms,
comprar un libro, etc. Y si la lengua es comunicación,
entonces los procesos de su aprendizaje, como asegura
Martín Peris (2004:474) “necesariamente han de ir más allá
de la observación y manipulación de estructuras
correspondientes a los distintos niveles del sistema, y
ejercitar la explotación del potencial significativo de la L2”. Si
el alumno aprende la lengua para comunicarse, el medio del
que se sirve para ello, la gramática, también ha de ser para
comunicar. Hablamos ya de una gramática comunicativa que, según Matte Bon, es aquella “que se plantea el
análisis del funcionamiento de los idiomas desde una perspectiva que tiene en cuenta la comunicación”.
Comunicación y gramática, por tanto, forman parte del proceso de aprendizaje de la lengua, no como
términos contradictorios sino convergentes. El objetivo de la gramática en el aula es ayudar a los alumnos a
comunicarse en la L2, se supedita a los objetivos comunicativos no a construir estructuras lingüísticas
perfectas.
La dificultad, no obstante, muchas veces reside en saber llevar la gramática al aula, en ser capaces los
docentes de hacer que la gramática la conciba el alumno como un recurso al servicio de la comunicación.
Esto conlleva a un cambio asimismo del papel del profesor. La enseñanza ya no está centrada en el profesor,
ahora no se ve al docente únicamente como fuente de conocimiento sino que es quien guía a los estudiantes
en su proceso de aprendizaje, crea las condiciones necesarias para posibilitar el aprendizaje. Su función ya
no es enseñar, sino enseñar a aprender.
En efecto, potenciar este conocimiento gramatical previo, esa conciencia gramatical de otras lenguas que
activa cuando se pone a aprender la gramática ELE, lo obligan a reflexionar sobre la lengua y a manejar las
estrategias que más estén en consonancia con su estilo de aprendizaje.
aprender. Y eso se logrará motivando al alumno para que sea parte activa de su aprendizaje mediante
procedimientos que potencien la autonomía: inducir al descubrimiento de las reglas, utilizar técnicas de
autocorrección, el
trabajo en grupo y en parejas, etc.
b) una gramática contextualizada que favorezca un aprendizaje significativo, en relación con las
experiencias previas del alumno.

3.1 GRAMÁTICA CONTEXTUALIZADA

El estudiante aprende la gramática con una intención comunicativa, como un medio para hacer cosas con la
lengua (pedir algo, saludar…). Para ello, el alumno ha de conocer las reglas del sistema lingüístico, la forma,
en relación con su uso en el evento comunicativo.
La relación entre el sistema lingüístico y su función
comunicativa, sin embargo, no es unívoca. Una misma
función, como es por ej. pedir algo, se puede expresar a
63
través de varias formas lingüísticas: ¡Ponme agua!; ¿Me
servirías un poco de agua?. Y a su vez, una misma
estructura puede tener diferentes usos, como es el caso
de los enunciados interrogativos, que suelen funcionar
como pregunta (¿Tienes sed?) pero también pueden ser
petición (¿Me pasas la sal?).
Cuando usamos la lengua, seleccionamos los elementos
lingüísticos dependiendo de un determinado propósito y
en consonancia con el contexto en el que los utilizamos.
La cortesía o la relación de jerarquía entre los hablantes son los que hacen adecuados o no exponentes
como ¡Ponme agua! o ¿Me servirías un poco de agua? Esos distintos significados que cobran las diferentes
formas lingüísticas en un mismo contexto, deben ser conocidos por el aprendiz de ELE para la adecuación y
eficacia de su actuación lingüística, el “significado social de las funciones lingüísticas” en palabras de
Littlewood (1998:6).
Si la gramática tradicional entendía el sistema de la lengua tan solo como morfología y sintaxis, con la
gramática comunicativa se puso de relevancia también el contexto, que en palabras de Concha Moreno
(2004:605) es “en primer lugar, el conjunto de elementos extralingüísticos: situacionales, sociales, culturales,
anímicos, y en segundo lugar, lingüísticos: los recursos para la expresión de la forma textual, en los que se
inserta un determinado texto y de los cuales depende para adquirir su significado concreto y adecuado, es
decir su sentido.

Forma, uso y significado deberán ser explicados y trabajados de forma integrada por el profesor, pues los
aspectos formales vienen subordinados al significado y las intenciones. De ahí que la gramática deba estar
contextualizada, dado que el estudiante de ELE aprende el significado al mismo tiempo que la forma y el uso.
Aquí es donde entra la dimensión pragmática de la enseñanza de la gramática, por eso, cuanto más fiel a la
realidad sean las muestras de lengua que ofrecemos al alumno, mejores resultados logrará en su eficacia
comunicativa.

Forma, uso y significado deberán ser explicados y trabajados de forma integrada por el profesor, pues los
aspectos formales vienen subordinados al significado y las intenciones. De ahí que la gramática deba estar
contextualizada, dado que el estudiante de ELE aprende el significado al mismo tiempo que la forma y el uso.
Aquí es donde entra la dimensión pragmática de la enseñanza de la gramática, por eso, cuanto más fiel a la
realidad sean las muestras de lengua que ofrecemos al alumno, mejores resultados logrará en su eficacia
comunicativa.
Nuestra labor como docentes no es solo adiestrar a nuestros estudiantes para que produzcan frases
gramaticalmente correctas, sino que además deben saber expresar e interpretar las intenciones y
significados que toman dentro del discurso y el contexto en que se producen. Muchos son los problemas que
acarrea trabajar con frases descontextualizadas y sin un claro objetivo comunicativo pues de esta forma se
presenta una gramática incompleta e ineficaz que no incentiva la creatividad y la capacidad cognitiva de

64
nuestros alumnos.
El alumno irá aprendiendo los conocimientos morfosintácticos de forma progresiva mediante actividades en
las que se trabaja tanto con el uso como con la forma de la lengua, sin olvidar que el propósito de dichas
actividades será significativo.
Así pues, en los manuales de E/LE o el material que el profesor facilite al estudiante encontraremos
actividades con diferentes objetivos pedagógicos:
Actividades con el foco en la forma, que aumentan el conocimiento explícito de la gramática.
Actividades con el foco en el uso, que aumentan el conocimiento implícito.
Actividades con el foco en la forma y en el uso al mismo tiempo.
Gracias a estas actividades, el alumno va aprendiendo-adquiriendo la gramática de la nueva lengua,
asimilando las nuevas estructuras e interiorizándolas hasta que logre usar la lengua lo más
inconscientemente posible.
3.2. GRAMÁTICA PARA LA REFLEXIÓN
Decíamos en el apartado anterior, que comprender un elemento del sistema de la lengua significa conocer
tanto la forma lingüística como su uso y funcionalidad, dado que gramática y comunicación son indisolubles.
Pero también sabemos que para que se puedan comunicar eficazmente nuestros alumnos no basta solo con
conocer y comprender los elementos lingüísticos pues existe diferencia, como ya constatara Peris (1998),
“entre la comprensión e interpretación de un determinado fenómeno y la capacidad de utilizarlo, es decir,
entre conocimiento y control. Los hablantes nativos tienen conocimiento y control simultáneos de la
gramática de su lengua; los alumnos extranjeros han de poder comprender determinados fenómenos de la
L2 antes de controlarlo.
¿Y cómo logrará el alumno ese control? Sin duda, es la pregunta que se siguen haciendo los docentes, y a la
que metodologías y teorías de la adqusición de L2/Segundas intentan dar cada vez mejores respuestas.
Los enfoques comunicativos consideran que el alumno debe estar expuesto a muestras de lengua (o input11)
que le ofrezcan la oportunidad de observar en contexto la forma lingüística y así comprender su uso y
funcionalidad, lo cual le llevará a construir por sí mismo su significado. En el enfoque por tareas sobre todo
de los primeros años la actuación pedagógica se focalizaba en las actividades de producción, en el output,
pues era comunicándose como se entendía que debía aprenderse el sistema lingüístico. Si una lengua es un
instrumento de comunicación, la mejor forma de trabajar con ella es comunicándose. Sin que esto haya
dejado de ser verdad, la investigación y estudios posteriores han puesto de manifiesto la importancia de la
reflexión sobre la forma en que las lenguas elaboran el sentido que luego los usuarios se encargan de
transmitir.
Entre estos estudiosos se encuentra Van Patten, que en la década de los noventa del siglo pasado defiende
la idea de que la instrucción gramatical no debe aplicarse al producto, a la producción, sino que debe actuar
dentro de las primeras fases en las que el alumno va construyendo su conocimiento para que así pueda
interiorizar esa gramática. Esto ayuda a desarrollar de forma más efectiva su interlengua (sistema en
desarrollo).

Figura 2. La instrucción gramatical según Van Patten (1995), sacado de Gómez del Estal (CVC.
Biblioteca Básica)

65
En esta teoría del input estructurado (processing input) de VanPatten, el proceso de adquisición del
componente gramatical, el cual debe siempre atender al significado, pasa primero por la comprensión y el
procesamiento antes de llegar a la adquisición, para contribuir a conformar la interlengua del alumno. Pero
para que se facilite ese trasvase del conocimiento explícito (comprender el fenómeno y procesarlo) hacia el
conocimiento implícito (poder actualizarlo de forma instintiva en la producción) se requiere que el alumno
“haga algo” con el input y mediante actividades en el aula se le incite a la reflexión guiada sobre los
fenómenos lingüísticos.

Estas actividades, como se puede observar en la figura 1, requieren del uso del lenguaje, pero sin pedir la
producción de la forma gramatical en cuestión.
Los puntos básicos para desarrollar estas actividades según Van Patten (1993:438-439) son:
1. se enseña sólo un aspecto de la gramática a la vez
2. se mantiene el enfoque en el significado en cada momento
3. ha de haber una progresión desde el uso de frases hasta el discurso
4. se usa input oral además del escrito
5. el estudiante debe interactuar con el input12
6. tener en cuenta las estrategias de procesamiento psicolingüístico.

Lo interesante de la propuesta del input estructurado es que aboga por el tratamiento específico de la
gramática en el aula y sostiene que el alumno primero debe comprender y conceptualizar, para luego producir.
Consideramos que esto, por lo menos para las estructuras más difíciles, es efectivo. Y para que el
'input' se convierta en 'intake' es necesario, afirma Concha Moreno (2004:601), “que sea frecuente;

que se resalte en la cadena hablada o escrita; que se canalice la atención hacia la forma durante la
enseñanza; que se activen las capacidades individuales para procesar; que se tenga en cuenta el estadio de
la IL; que se facilite la reflexión mediante las actividades de aula”.
La reflexión y la concienciación sobre la gramática llegará asimismo al enfoque por tareas (Gómez del Estal,
2004), cuando ante las críticas que recibieron por la falta de precisión que alcanzaban los estudiantes incluso
en niveles avanzados, introdujeron actividades pre-comunicativas o posibilitadoras, en las que se presta una
mayor atención a los elementos lingüísticos, sin olvidar los principios comunicativos de toda tarea:
interacción, vacío de información, etc. La finalidad de estas actividades de aprendizaje13 es "dotar al
estudiante de algunas de las destrezas necesarias para la comunicación, sin exigirle en realidad que realice
actos comunicativos" (W. Littlewood, 1998:7). Son actividades en las que no se requiere tanto que el alumno
comunique significados sino más bien que produzca "formas de la lengua de un modo aceptable" (idem:15).
Podríamos decir que hay dos estadios diferenciados cuando enseñamos a nuestros alumnos a aprender
gramática: lo comunicativo, que es lo primordial, y lo trabajamos con cualquier destreza mediante
actividades centradas en el significado; y la instrucción formal que se trabaja por medio de estas tareas de
aprendizaje que permiten al alumno fijarse en la estructura y el funcionamiento de la lengua. Pero son
estadios, son un continuum, pues no hablamos aquí de tomar el papel del profesor que da una "lección de
gramática" (Gómez del Estal, 2004) sino de integrar esos dos estadios. Así pues, el estudio de la gramática es
66
un medio para mejorar la escritura, la ortografía, la lectura..., esto es, la competencia comunicativa y así, el
alumno se enfrenta a actividades centradas en el significado, con intercambio de información, actividades
que se relacionan con la realidad fuera del aula, sin excluir el aprendizaje reflexivo de la lengua.

4. TRATAMIENTO DEL ERROR GRAMATICAL

Aprender una LE es un proceso creativo que permite ir adquiriendo el nuevo sistema lingüístico de forma
progresiva. El alumno tiene que ir construyendo su conocimiento lingüístico partiendo de sus conocimientos
y experiencias previas, a través de la elaboración paulatina de reglas y normas lingüísticas que van formando
su interlengua, con aciertos y errores, según su estado de desarrollo. Y como señala Corder
(Liceras,1991:75-76) será mediante la corrección de esos errores que se proporcione la evidencia para el
descubrimiento de la regla o el concepto correctos, por lo que en última instancia, la corrección ofrece la
oportunidad al profesor de suministrarle al alumno los datos necesarios para que reconsidere su hipótesis
equivocada, para que se forme un concepto más adecuado de la regla de la LE. Corregir el error gramatical,
por tanto, no tiene como función evaluar o juzgar los conocimientos lingüísticos del alumno, sino que lo que
pretende es "reparar" las deficiencias de la producción interlingüística del aprendiz, que se encuentra en
constante evolución y por eso debe ir procesando hipótesis hasta que éstas se confirmen. Debemos
entender la corrección del error, por tanto, como un recurso didáctico al servicio del aprendizaje, pues tal
como asegura Cassany (1996:27) es la "culminación del aprendizaje" ya que, por un lado, al alumno le
permite saber cuáles son sus deficiencias a la hora de formular sus hipótesis sobre las reglas de su
interlengua, proporcionándole además los medios para enmendarlas y así seguir avanzando en su proceso
de aprendizaje; mientras que por otro, al profesor le permite comprobar si sus técnicas docentes son
efectivas y si se ha de dedicar más tiempo a contenidos que no se han asimilado totalmente.

Experimentar significa errar y errar progresar.

Para lograr alcanzar una competencia comunicativa eficaz, los estudiantes de ELE cuentan con el
conocimiento gramatical que adquieren a través de los libros y materiales, a través de la ayuda del profesor
y, por supuesto, con el conocimiento gramatical que poseen (tanto explícito como implícito) en cada uno de
los estadios de su interlengua.
Lo que se debe cuidar sobremanera en la interlengua es la posible fosilización de errores, ya que puede un
aprendiente estancarse en un determinado estadio dentro de su evolución de la interlengua y quedar fijado
así un uso defectuoso del sistema.
La utilidad de la corrección para evitar y prevenir la fosilización de las formas desviadas es evidente. La
cuestión es cómo tratar el error de modo que podamos sacarle rentabilidad en nuestras clases; qué técnicas
correctivas son más eficaces en nuestra práctica docente.

4.1 Tipología de errores

En primer lugar debemos tener en cuenta que no todos los errores son iguales, que no tienen ni las mismas
causas (intralingüísticos, interlingüísticos), ni los mismos efectos en la comunicación (unos impiden la
comprensión del mensaje, otros no) o en el aprendizaje (transitorios o sistemáticos). Desde el punto de vista
pedagógico, en cuanto al tratamiento del error gramatical, debemos distinguir entre errores transitorios,
que se producen por desconocimiento efectivo de la regla y que forman parte de un determinado estadio de
la interlengua del alumno, y errores permanentes, que son “errores que reaparecen en sucesivas etapas y
que ofrecen una especial resistencia” (S. Fernández, 1996:147). El error permanente o fosilizable es un tipo
de error que suele aparecer en aquellas estructuras que implican mayor dificultad para el alumno (idem,
149 y G. Vázquez, 1999:43), ya sea porque no existe en su lengua materna (la presencia/ausencia del
pronombre se); por la polisemia de sus funciones o formas (preposiciones); incluso también puede aparecer
por la utilización de una metodología poco eficaz por parte del profesor, por ejemplo puede ser inducido el
error a causa de una explicación poco consistente del tipo el verbo ser indica lo permanente y estar lo
momentáneo: es español, es muerto*/está sucio, está estudiante* o porque presentamos demasiados
contenidos nuevos a la vez y así no les facilitamos su asimilación o interiorización.
67
4.2 Técnicas de corrección
4.2.1 ¿Qué debemos corregir?
En cualquier nivel de lengua en que se encuentren nuestros alumnos ni podemos corregirles todos los
errores que cometen, pues sería agotador tanto para docente como para discentes además de frustrante; ni
tampoco ignorar buena parte de ellos. No es necesario corregir absolutamente todo. No estamos evaluando
a los alumnos, lo único que queremos es que aprendan y para eso corregimos.
Lo mejor es seleccionar lo que realmente es importante y necesario para el alumno. La idea no es corregir lo
máximo posible sino lo mejor posible. La corrección debe obedecer a unos objetivos didácticos, de ahí que
sea más efectiva si se limita a un número determinado de estructuras que se están trabajando y si se adecúa
al nivel de los aprendientes, pues no tiene sentido corregir exhaustivamente elementos que no se han enseñado
previamente. Hemos de centrarnos en los errores propios de la interlengua del nivel en el que se
encuentran nuestros alumnos, por lo que el profesor debe conocer cuáles son los objetivos y contenidos
lingüísticos de cada nivel, para así también analizar cuáles son heredados de otros niveles y cuáles los
errores que surgen nuevos.
Es importante dar prioridad a los errores más graves, que son aquellos que entorpecen la comunicación y no
dejan entender lo que realmente el alumno quiere expresar.
También dependerá de la dificultad de la actividad o de su objetivo, si se trata de una actividad donde se
está trabajando la fluidez o la precisión, pues no es lo mismo corregir el error gramatical cuando el alumno
está interactuando oralmente que cuando lo hacemos en un texto escrito o una actividad de completar, por
ejemplo. En la conversación el alumno está más atento a poder transmitir su mensaje por lo que presta
menos atención a la forma, además de que influyen otros factores como pueda ser la ansiedad, el estar
expuesto ante el resto de la clase, etc.
4.2.2 ¿Cuándo debemos corregir?
Nuestros alumnos han de saber que no todos los errores se pueden corregir en el momento, ni tampoco a
posteriori. El momento más oportuno para corregir dependerá de si el tipo de producción es oral o escrito,
pues en efecto, no es muy eficaz interrumpir continuamente al alumno que está hablando, por lo que la
corrección simultánea en estos casos no es la más adecuada. Ahora bien, en la idea de evitar que sean
perceptibles de fosilizarse el profesor puede utilizar las siguientes técnicas para corregirlos (Giovanni et al.,
2005:22):
a) Llevar un registro de los errores más frecuentes y presentarlos para su observación en una actividad
b) Llamar la atención con posterioridad cuando el mensaje queda claro pese a la insistencia persistente
de un error
c) Interrumpir al alumno cuando el error no permite entender con claridad el mensaje (evidencia
negativa)
d) Corrección explicita: eficaz para el aspecto formal en actividades más controladas
En la producción escrita, no obstante, donde no se suele usar la modalidad inmediata sino más bien la
diferida, es importante que la corrección se entregue después de un tiempo prudencial, que no sea muy
dilatado, ya que de lo contrario corremos el riesgo de que el alumno pierda el interés y la motivación y no
aproveche las sugerencias.
4.2.3 ¿Cómo debemos corregir?
Hay dos tipos básicos de corrección, de forma implícita o explícita. En la corrección directa se muestra al
alumno que hay un error y se le da la solución. No fomenta la participación del alumno y en algunos casos,
pese al esfuerzo del profesor por facilitar feedback no se logra el objetivo pedagógico que se esperaba: el
caso típico del alumno que recibe una actividad corregida, mira rápidamente las anotaciones en rojo del
profesor, se fija en la nota global principalmente y guarda la actividad.
En la corrección indirecta se hace notar el error pero no se facilita ninguna explicación metalingüística ni
solución. Esta técnica fomenta la labor de autocorrección por parte del alumno ya que le da pistas
facilitadoras pero no la solución. Para la expresión escrita se puede trabajar por ejemplo con símbolos o
colores que indiquen donde están los errores pero es fundamental que no se les dé la corrección ya hecha,
para que el alumno así tenga que revisar su escrito, reflexionar sobre los fenómenos lingüísticos y él mismo
68
corregir sus errores. En la producción oral se puede también utilizar estrategias que usaría un interlocutor
como las de pedir aclaraciones, utilizando la negociación de significado, repitiendo el error con una
entonación enfática o interrogativa para marcar que hay algo que no va bien, etc.
Alumna: Me enfada con mi novio ayer, por eso, recogí sus cosas y….
Profesor: ¿me enfadA? ¿hoy?
El tratamiento correctivo de la gramática no se ha de realizar solo por parte del profesor sino que hay que
crear oportunidades para que el alumno se autocorrija o que el alumno corrija a sus compañeros, pues esto
contribuye a la autonomía de aprendizaje y a aprender a aprender. Se pueden hacer correcciones cruzadas
entre compañeros o por parejas; en un debate o puesta en común, un grupo de alumnos puede ser el
encargado de apuntar en una lista las estructuras erróneas, o incluso si se prefiere la corrección simultánea
se les puede dar una tarjeta roja, a modo de árbitros, y cada vez que oigan algo que no les parece correcto la
levantarán y entonces el compañero intentará autocorregirse (A. I. Blanco Picado)
Para concluir, nos gustaría hacer notar que la corrección de errores es un buen momento también para
repasar o asentar la gramática. Ese repaso, como hemos visto, no tiene que hacerlo solo el profesor sino que
puede venir de parte de los alumnos.
III. ¿CÓMO PRESENTAR LA GRAMÁTICA EN CLASE?
1. LA GRAMÁTICA Y EL PROFESOR La gramática en la clase de ELE Consideraciones sobre su valor en la
enseñanza y cómo presentarla Leonor Quintana Susana Lugo Mirón

Si un estudiante nos dice en una de las primeras clases "Yo es francés” y le respondemos “No, no. Él ES
francés; yo SOY francés”, estamos enseñando gramática lo mismo que si dijéramos que “en las lenguas
flexivas el verbo debe concordar con el sujeto en número y persona y para ello hay que variar el morfema
que unamos al lexema”, algo que no recomendamos hacer en absoluto.

EL PROFESOR COMO FUENTE DE CONOCIMIENTO

Independientemente de la metodología que siga el profesor, lo cierto es que en algún momento de la
práctica docente la gramática va a tratarse específicamente; ya sea de manera incidental cuando corregimos
a un alumno (Ojo, no se dice trabajaba* todo el verano sino trabajé porque…) o un estudiante nos pregunta
una duda (Profesor, ¿se dice es* contento o está contento?), ya sea de una forma más planificada, como es el
caso de cuando presentamos un tema de gramática o realizamos ejercicios gramaticales.
En esos momentos el profesor deberá dar explicaciones sobre el sistema, reglas que ayuden al alumno a
entender y categorizar los fenómenos gramaticales y, además, para que sirvan de verdad a nuestros
estudiantes deberán ser claras, fáciles de recordar y usar, poco extensas, etc. El profesor tiene aquí el papel
de hacer que su explicación sea operativa para sus alumnos, especialmente en aquellos aspectos
gramaticales que revierten mayor dificultad y no se pueden entender fácilmente pese a trabajar la lengua de
forma contextualizada y atendiendo a su uso. las dificultades concretas que puedan tener nuestros
alumnos al estudiar español dependerán en gran medida de su lengua materna y también de otros factores
como su formación, capacidad personal y conocimiento de otros idiomas.
La cuestión que nos ocupa es ¿cómo tiene el profesor que describir y analizar el lenguaje para que sus
alumnos puedan saber “usar” sus explicaciones? ¿qué entendemos por una buena regla gramatical?

Sin duda no hay recetas mágicas, ni siquiera podemos dar "recetas" del tipo "cuando la primera frase es
negativa ponemos sino en lugar de pero" “el pretérito perfecto se usa con adverbios y expresiones de
tiempo como hoy, ahora, esta mañana, este año…”, porque ese tipo de explicación no llega a funcionar del
todo ni en todos los casos:
Debemos intentar que nuestras sistematizaciones sean clarificadoras para nuestros alumnos, lo que significa
que no podrán ser como las explicaciones que aprendimos en el colegio o en la universidad, llenas de
terminología específica y nociones de difícil entendimiento. El profesor debe utilizar una explicación
“pedagógica”: presentarla de forma clara y acompañada de ejemplos ilustrativos, que esté en consonancia
69
con las necesidades de los alumnos y con su nivel de lengua, pues no es necesario explicarlo todo.
Ello conlleva conocer en profundidad el sistema gramatical del español y sus variaciones de uso, analizar con
espíritu crítico las explicaciones que se ofrecen en los manuales y libros de modo que pueda el docente
adaptarlas o mejorarlas y no provoquen “los llamados ‘errores por instrucción´” (C. Moreno, 2007:17) que
resultan de dar reglas y explicaciones que no han sido lo suficientemente meditadas.
2. LA CUESTIÓN DEL METALENGUAJE: La gramática en la clase de ELE Consideraciones sobre su valor en
la enseñanza y cómo presentarla Leonor Quintana Susana Lugo Mirón
En el primer módulo referíamos que el docente de español debía conocer tanto la gramática científica como
la pedagógica para su trabajo y formación, y que eso le llevaba a consultar tratados gramaticales, a leer
artículos especializados, a analizar el tratamiento gramatical en los manuales que utiliza, etc., por lo que se
sobreentiende que domina la terminología que se utiliza en la ciencia de la que se ocupa, el metalenguaje: el
lenguaje que le permite hablar de la lengua en sí misma cuando describe su sistema lingüístico. Pero cuando
el profesor entra en el aula ¿qué metalenguaje va a llevar a ella? ¿cómo deberá seleccionarlo? ¿de qué
dependerá esa selección?
Lo cierto es que tener que hablar de la lengua sin utilizar las palabras que la definen puede conformar una
gran dificultad para el docente, pero por otro lado debemos tener en cuenta que nuestros alumnos no son
filólogos ni gramáticos y desconocen lo que es un complemento indirecto o una locución preposicional, por
lo que deberemos adecuar nuestro discurso y no hablarles con la lengua de un especialista.
No obstante, esta decisión dependerá siempre de las características de nuestros alumnos, porque no será lo
mismo enseñar a niños pequeños o a adultos no alfabetizados en su lengua materna que a estudiantes
universitarios, por ejemplo. Debemos tener en cuenta los conocimientos previos del grupo, su estilo
predominante de aprendizaje y sus necesidades.
Por lo general, los alumnos conocen los conceptos más básicos y solemos utilizar el metalenguaje de la
gramática tradicional si necesitamos denominarlos: sustantivo, verbo, sujeto…., por ejemplo, porque
necesitan buscar información en diccionarios y nos interesa que se fijen en todos los datos.
no hay que olvidar que el conocer en
cierto grado términos gramaticales les puede ser útil para seguir aprendiendo fuera del aula, para constituir
en aprendientes autónomos y aprender incluso después de terminar su instrucción.
En caso de que el profesor conozca la terminología en la lengua materna de los alumnos podrá hacerles ver
la relación o incluso utilizar ese mismo metalenguaje que usan sus alumnos. Resultará muy útil aprovecharse
de ese conocimiento previo de nuestros alumnos. No obstante, no debemos olvidar que lo más común en las
metodologías comunicativas es no tener que recurrir al metalenguaje dado que no se suele hacer un análisis de
la lengua.
3. PROCEDIMIENTOS
3.1. Enseñanza inductiva de la gramática
En el caso de una enseñanza inductiva de la gramática, el alumno, después de observar una o varias
muestras de lengua (oral o escrita), va formulando sus propias hipótesis hasta que deduce la regla. El énfasis
se traslada al proceso de exploración que conduce a una comprensión auténtica del conocimiento, en la idea
de que quedan más firmemente asentadas en nuestras mentes todas aquellas cosas que descubrimos por
nosotros mismos que las que nos son dadas.
Con este procedimiento -formulación de hipótesis a partir de muestras y verificación de hipótesis-, el
estudiante se va formulando, por ejemplo, las reglas de formación de género y de concordancia de género,
y así se va acercando de forma inconsciente al sistema gramatical de la lengua.

La enseñanza inductiva tiene utilidad por varias razones. El alumno tendrá una mayor participación en la
comprensión de la lengua a medida que va deduciendo las diferentes reglas gramaticales y de uso de la
L2. Este enfoque también le servirá a los alumnos para asentar mejor los conceptos ya que pueden verificar
y corregir las hipótesis erradas que puedan tener y, sin duda, al profesor le servirá para ver qué piensan sus
alumnos acerca de cómo funciona la gramática.

70
3.2. Enseñanza deductiva de la gramática
En el caso de una enseñanza deductiva de la gramática, es el profesor quien presenta o explica la regla
gramatical o la regla de uso. Suele acompañar la explicación con algunos ejemplos. A continuación, los
alumnos aplican la regla presentada haciendo algún tipo de actividad o ejercicio.
Con este procedimiento (presentación de la regla - ejemplificación - ejercitación), el estudiante aprende a
aplicar las reglas gramaticales.
La enseñanza explícita suele ser más eficaz para aquellas estructuras en las que los estudiantes pueden
fácilmente
detectar las estructuras y su funcionamiento, y donde el profesor puede tratar los elementos lingüísticos sin
tener que dar explicaciones largas o complicadas.
El trabajo deductivo no es inútil ni rechazable, pero tal vez sí lo sea su uso exclusivo. Cuando potenciamos
operaciones inductivas en los alumnos, cuando los hacemos reflexionar y contrastar hipótesis, los estamos
ayudando en su progresión en el aprendizaje.

Entendemos por tanto, que estas distintas maneras de ejercitar la competencia gramatical no son formas
excluyentes, sino que el profesor las tiene a su disposición para recurrir a la que considere más conveniente
en cada caso. Es aconsejable combinar la enseñanza deductiva con la inductiva porque hay estudiantes que
necesitan más una u otra, y en la mayoría de los casos necesitan de las dos para aprender definitivamente
un contenido gramatical.
El profesor debe decidir, según las necesidades y características de sus alumnos, cuándo, cómo y cuánto de
observación, explicación de reglas y práctica, proporcionará a sus estudiantes para que aprendan un
determinado contenido gramatical.
En cuanto a la cuestión de cómo saber si los estudiantes deben descubrir la regla por sí mismos o el profesor
71
debe proporcionársela, Hulstijn (1995)14 propone algunos criterios muy útiles:
1. Nunca se debe presentar una regla sin proporcionar ejemplos ilustrativos, pues en muchas ocasiones
son más efectivos que la propia regla.
2. Solo se debe invitar a los estudiantes a descubrir la regla cuando el profesor esté seguro de que
pueden inferirla correctamente: si deducen una regla incorrecta y el profesor no la corrige
inmediatamente, explica el autor, les costará mucho reemplazarla por la correcta.
3. La variedad de técnicas de enseñanza es estimulante para los aprendices, por lo que nada se puede
objetar a proporcionar la regla en algunas ocasiones, y en otras invitar a los aprendices a que la
descubran por sí mismos.
4. PRESENTACIÓN PROGRESIVA DE LOS CONTENIDOS GRAMATICALES
En el apartado dedicado al aprendizaje y enseñanza de la lengua del MCER se aconseja la planificación
detallada del material que se presenta a los alumnos de modo que estos puedan desarrollar su competencia
gramatical de forma progresiva, aunque la ordenación de los contenidos no deja de ser una convención. En
el mismo Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes ya se advierte que “el material que se incluye en la serie (el
inventario de descriptores del MCER) debe entenderse como un punto de partida para la preparación de
programas, de acuerdo con las características de cada situación de enseñanza y aprendizaje en particular, o
para cualquier otra aplicación de las ya indicadas, pero teniendo siempre claro que es necesario un
tratamiento de ajuste y adaptación por parte de quienes lo utilicen”.
Aprender progresivamente significa, lógicamente, ir de lo más fácil a lo más difícil, pero esto no tan sencillo
de decidir en el tema que nos ocupa, ni la investigación ha podido asegurar hasta el momento qué
contenidos lingüísticos son más difíciles de adquirir en español ELE pues depende de demasiados factores
que cuesta cuantificar: perfil de los alumnos, metodología, grado de exposición a la lengua, etc. En cierto
modo se hace de forma intuitiva y basándonos en las necesidades comunicativas del alumno. Veámoslo con
un ejemplo.
Nuestros alumnos aprenden a pedir o solicitar algo, pongamos que en un restaurante quieren pedir la
cuenta (la cuenta, por favor/ ¿Me trae/traería la cuenta, por favor?)
Enseñarles a usar un simple “por favor” es más fácil, más rentable y útil que esperar a que dominen la
diferencia entre traer/llevar o el uso del condicional de cortesía.
Los contenidos gramaticales se ven en el aula en relación a las acciones comunicativas que nuestros alumnos
necesitan realizar, y de ahí que se seleccionen según las funciones lingüísticas que esos actos comunicativos
requieran. Las actividades en los que aparecen se programan para que los estudiantes puedan comprender y
asimilar las estructuras lingüísticas que implica expresar lo que desean decir.
Cuando hablábamos de las reglas gramaticales decíamos que no le podíamos “contar todo” de los elementos
lingüísticos al alumno por razones pedagógicas, y así también ocurre con los contenidos gramaticales. Si se lo
damos todo junto les resultará más difícil de “digerir” y por eso se lo vamos dosificando. Los contenidos
gramaticales van apareciendo de forma secuenciada y cíclica, se introducen y se reintroducen a lo largo de
la programación de un curso para ir trabajando el mismo elemento en nuevos contextos, con distintos
significados y usos, en consonancia con otros contenidos.
Un ejemplo claro lo podemos ver con los verbos ser y estar. En la programación de un nivel inicial tendremos
muchas sesiones diferentes en las que nos dedicaremos a trabajar con ellos. Primero con su función de
identificar (soy inglés, soy alto,…); posteriormente contrastado con estar y su función locativa (soy inglés,
estoy en clase…) pues nuestros alumnos extranjeros no cuentan con dos verbos diferentes para estas
funciones. Y ya a continuación, cuando se hayan interiorizado estos usos pasaremos a ver el uso de estos dos
verbos con adjetivo, que es el más problemático para los estudiantes de español ELE (es guapa, está casada).

72
The Role of Grammar in Communicative Language Teaching:
An Exploration of Second Language Teachers’ Perceptions and
Classroom Practices
Cathy Chiu Yin Wong
(cwong@monmouth.edu)
Monmouth University, USA
Mirta Barrea-Marlys
(mbarrea@monmouth.edu)
Monmouth University, USA
The idea of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been expanded since the mid 1970s. CLT
was also greatly influenced by the early version of Long’s (1983a, 1983b, 1996) Interaction Hypothesis.
Since then, second language (L2) instructors have been encouraged to employ communicative
ways of teaching in their classrooms. The focal point of CLT was almost exclusively on meaningful
interaction through the use of spontaneous speech during pair and/or group work. There are various
methods for teaching communicatively, for example, immersion, task-based instruction, structured
input, and The Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). One controversial aspect of CLT is the
role of grammar instruction. Krashen’s (1982, 1985) Monitor Theory suggests that grammar instruction
is unnecessary and has a very minimal effect on second language acquisition (SLA). Since the
revised version of the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), CLT scholars have become interested in
integrating form-focused instruction with communicative activities (Spada & Lightbown, 2009). Pica
(2000) argues that communicative teaching that focuses mainly on meaning with very little attention to forms
are not adequate to prepare learners for attaining native-like proficiency. As such, the role of
grammar in CLT needs to be justified. Instructors’ pedagogical practices and their decisions regarding
teaching methods are heavily influenced by their teacher beliefs. This study aims at examining the
perceptions of grammar instruction of six college level teachers who teach Spanish as L2 and at exploring
how they implement grammar instruction in their CLT classrooms.
The term communicative competence was first used by Hymes (1972, 1974) to refer to a speakers’
capability to speak a language with linguistic proficiency and to use language appropriately in different
social contexts. Savignon (1972) describes communicative competence as the ability to function in
a truly communicative setting that allows learners to communicate with other speakers effectively and
spontaneously. Savignon (1976) further explains that communicative competence is dependent on the
negotiation of meaning between speakers, because communication is spontaneous. Speakers need to
negotiate meaning based on what is unclear to them.
To achieve communicative competence, learners need to be competent in four aspects: linguistic,
sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Swain,
1985). According to Canale (1983) and Canale and Swain (1980), linguistic competence, which is also
called grammatical competence, concerns learners’ use of lexis, syntax, and structures. Sociolinguistic
competence concerns learners’ appropriate use of language in different situations and settings. Discourse
competence refers to the speakers’ ability to form oral and written language appropriately and
meaningfully. As suggested by the term itself, strategic competence relates to the use of strategies that
can be used to make up for the inadequate abilities in other aspects of competence.
Researchers have investigated the acquisition of each competence (see Meyer, 1990; Rintell, 1990;
Sato, 1990; Swain & Lapkin, 1990). These studies provide evidence that each competence plays a
significant role in the acquisition of communicative competence. However, teachers seem to deemphasize
grammar accuracy in their CLT classrooms (Wang, 2009). According to Savignon (2002),
there is a difference between communicative competence and communicative ability. Communicative
competence refers to the ability to interpret information, express oneself, and negotiate meaning.
Communicative ability refers to the ability to comprehend meaning and to use forms appropriately.
73
This implies the importance of grammar learning in order to achieve a higher level of communication.
In the context of CLT, whether or not grammar instruction should be included has been a controversial
topic.
2.2 The role of grammar in Communicative Language Teaching
There is a mixture of beliefs regarding grammar instruction. Some scholars support the exclusion of
grammar learning (e.g. Prabhu, 1987), while other researchers emphasize the need to include grammar
teaching in CLT (e.g. Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Nassaji, 2000; Spada & Lightbown, 1993).
Krashen’s (1982, 1985) hypothesis of acquisition versus learning has had an influence on the notion
that focusing solely on meaning is sufficient for SLA. In his hypothesis, Krashen claims that there is a
distinction between acquisition and learning. He believes that acquisition happens naturally, provided that
learners receive sufficient comprehensible input, and that only acquired knowledge can lead to
fluent communication. Also, Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis proposes that explicit form teaching only
serves as a tool for monitoring learners’ language. That is, learners learn grammatical rules only to
monitor the correctness of their language use, which is in addition to what has been acquired. However,
the advocates of explicit grammar instruction argue that it is inadequate to acquire a L2, if meaning
is the only focus.
Long (1991) differentiates between focus on forms and focus on form. He defines focus on forms
as learning grammar rules, and focus on form as drawing learners’ attention to grammar in activities
and tasks. In the past two decades, some researchers have returned to the investigation of form-focused
instruction in CLT (e.g. Celce-Murcia, 1991; Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 1993; Long &
Crookes, 1992). The studies on language accuracy of students in an immersion program in Canada
provide important evidence that form focused instruction is needed (e.g. Harley & Swain, 1984; Swain,
1985). These immersion students received massive amounts of input and had plenty of interaction in
the program for a period of time, but their utterances still contained grammatical mistakes. As a result
of excluding form-focused instruction, the learners’ output lacked in accuracy (Williams, 1995).
A number of studies (e.g. Doughty, 1991; Doughty & Williams, 1998; Lightbown, 1991; Trahey &
White, 1993; White, 1991) have examined the effectiveness of focusing on form and indicated that
students with form-focused instruction outperformed those without instruction on the targeted forms.
The results of these studies are very important, because they support the role of form-focused instruction.
Some teachers think that form-focused instruction and communicative activities, where the focus
is on meaning, should be separated. Teachers believe that drawing students’ attention to grammar,
while they are engaging in meaning, may have harmful effects (Lightbown, 1998). However, some
scholars argue that form-focused instruction and communicative activities should be combined. Students
pay more attention to target forms, and the forms become more memorable, if students learn
them in context (Foto, 1994; Lightbown, 1998; Nassaji, 2000; Wang, 2009).
One way to present
grammar communicatively is through structured input activities (Lee & VanPatten, 2003). Structured
input is a type of instruction that directs learners to pay attention to the target language through arranging
input from the instruction. These activities are called structured input activities. The basic notion
of these activities is how learners encode grammatical forms through meaningful context. The purpose
of structured input activities is to raise learners’ awareness of the target structures with meaning.

74
Grammar:

What is Grammar? 2
Why should we teach Grammar? 3
The deductive approach – rule-driven learning 6
The inductive approach – the rule-discovery path 10
The functional- notional approach 15
Teaching grammar in situational contexts 21
Teaching grammar through texts 25
Teaching grammar through stories 27
Teaching grammar through songs and rhymes 28
Some rules for teaching grammar

Grammar is the mental system of rules and categories that allows humans to form and
interpret the words and sentences of their language.
grammar adds meanings that are not easily inferable from the immediate context.
The kinds of meanings realised by grammar are principally:
• representational - that is, grammar enables us to use language to describe the
world in terms of how, when and where things happen
e.g. The sun set at 7.30. The children are playing in the garden.
• interpersonal - that is, grammar facilitates the way we interact with other
people when, for example, we need to get things done using language.
e.g. There is a difference between:
Tickets!
Tickets, please.
Can you show me your tickets?
May see your tickets?
Would you mind if I had a look at your tickets.
Grammar is used to fine-tune the meanings we wish to express.

75
1) The sentence-machine argument
Part of the process of language learning must be what is sometimes called item-learning —
that is the memorisation of individual items such as words and phrases. However, there is a
limit to the number of items a person can both retain and retrieve. Even travellers' phrase
books have limited usefulness — good for a three-week holiday, but there comes a point
where we need to learn some patterns or rules to enable us to generate new sentences. That is
to say, grammar. Grammar, after all, is a description of the regularities in a language, and
knowledge of these regularities provides the learner with the means to generate a potentially
enormous number of original sentences. The number of possible new sentences is constrained
only by the vocabulary at the learner's command and his or her creativity. Grammar is a kind
of 'sentence-making machine'. It follows that the teaching of grammar offers the learner the
means for potentially limitless linguistic creativity.
2) The fine-tuning argument
The purpose of grammar seems to be to allow for greater subtlety of meaning than a merely
lexical system can cater for. While it is possible to get a lot of communicative mileage out of
simply stringing words and phrases together, there comes a point where 'Me Tarzan, you
Jane'-type language fails to deliver, both in terms of intelligibility and in terms of appropriacy.
This is particularly the case for written language, which generally needs to be more explicit
than spoken language. The teaching of grammar, it is argued, serves as a corrective against the kind of
ambiguity represented in these examples.
3) The fossilisation argument
It is possible for highly motivated learners with a particular aptitude for languages to achieve
amazing levels of proficiency without any formal study. But more often 'pick it up as you go
along' learners reach a language plateau beyond which it is very difficult to progress. To put it
technically, their linguistic competence fossilises. Research suggests that learners who receive
no instruction seem to be at risk of fossilising sooner than those who do receive instruction.

76
Articulo de gramtica sin autor- grammar 1 | Mahfuzah Shamsudin - Academia.edu www.academia.edu/4273638/grammar_1

PRESENTING GRAMMAR
APPROACHES
The deductive approach – rule driven learning
A deductive approach starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by examples in which the rule is
applied.
The grammar rule is presented and the learner engages with it through the study and manipulation of examples.
Advantages of a deductive approach:
It gets straight to the point, and can therefore be time-saving. Many rules — especially rules of form — can
be more simply and quickly explained than elicited from examples. This will allow more time for practice and
application.
It respects the intelligence and maturity of many - especially adult -students, and acknowledges the role of
cognitive processes in language acquisition.
It confirms many students' expectations about classroom learning, particularly for those learners who have
an analytical learning style.
It allows the teacher to deal with language points as they come up, rather than having to anticipate them and
prepare for them in advance.
Disadvantages of a deductive approach:
Starting the lesson with a grammar presentation may be off-putting for some students, especially younger
ones. They may not have sufficient metalanguage (i.e. language used to talk about language such as grammar
terminology). Or they may not be able to understand the concepts involved.
Grammar explanation encourages a teacher-fronted, transmission-style classroom; teacher explanation is
often at the expense of student involvement and interaction.
Explanation is seldom as memorable as other forms of presentation, such as
demonstration.
77
 Such an approach encourages the belief that learning a language is simply a case of knowing the rules.
What is a rule ?
In the Longman Activity Dictionary “rule” is defined as:
a principle or order which guides behaviour, says how things are to be done etc,
(prescriptive rule)
the usual way that something happens ( descriptive rule). Descriptive rules are primarily concerned with
generalisations about what speakers of the language actually do say than what they should do.
Pedagogic rules – they make sense to learners and provide them with the means and confidence to generate
language with a reasonable chance of success. Pedagogic rules can be spit up into:

Many of the pros and cons of a rule-driven approach hinge on the quality of the actual rule explanation.
This in turn depends on how user-friendly the rule is.
What makes a rule a good rule? Michael Swan, author of teachers' and students' grammars, offers the
following criteria:
• Truth: Rules should be true. While truthfulness may need to be compromised in the interests of clarity
and simplicity, the rule must bear some resemblance to the reality it is describing.
It is surprising how many incorrect explanations you find in TEFL books. A good example is the distinction
usually made between some and any, which goes something like:
Use some+plural countable/uncountable noun in affirmative sentences.
Use any+plural countable/uncountable noun in negative sentences and questions.
It still fails to explain:
Take any one you want.
I didn't like some of his books.
An explanation based on the difference in meaning between some and any might eliminate
many of these problems.
• Limitation: Rules should show clearly what the limits are on the use of a given form.
For example, to say simply that we use will to talk about the future is of little use to the learner since it
doesn't show how will is different from other ways of talking about the future (e.g. going to).
• Clarity: Rules should be clear. Lack of clarity is often caused by ambiguity or obscure terminology.
For example: 'Use will for spontaneous decisions; use going to for premeditated decisions.' To which a
student responded, 'All my decisions are premeditated'.
• Simplicity: Rules should be simple. Lack of simplicity is caused by overburdening the rule with subcategories
and sub-sub-categories in order to cover all possible instances and account for all possible exceptions. There is a
limit to the amount of exceptions a learner can remember.
• Familiarity: An explanation should try to make use of concepts already familiar to the learner. Few learners
have specialised knowledge of grammar, although they may well be familiar with some basic terminology used
to describe the grammar of their own language (e.g. conditional, infinitive, gerund). Most learners have a
concept of tense (past, present, future), but will be less at home with concepts such as deontic and epistemic
modality, for example.
• Relevance: A rule should answer only those questions that the student needs answered. These questions
may vary according to the mother tongue of the learner. For example, Arabic speakers, who do not have an
equivalent to the present perfect, may need a different treatment of this form than, say, French speakers,
who have a similar structure to the English present perfect, but who use it slightly differently.

A lot depends on the teacher’s presentation of the rule. An effective rule presentation will include the
following features:
it will be illustrated by an example
It will be short
Students’ understanding will be checked
Students will have an opportunity to personalize the rule.
78
The inductive approach – the rule-discovery path
What are the advantages of encouraging learners to work rules out for themselves?
Rules learners discover for themselves are more likely to fit their existing mental structures than rules they
have been presented with. This in turn will make the rules more meaningful, memorable, and serviceable.
The mental effort involved ensures a greater degree of cognitive depth which, again, ensures greater
memorability.
Students are more actively involved in the learning process, rather than being simply passive recipients:
they are therefore likely to be more attentive and more motivated.
It is an approach which favours pattern-recognition and problem-solving abilities which suggests that it is
particularly suitable for learners who like this kind of challenge.
If the problem-solving is done collaboratively, and in the target language, learners get the opportunity for
extra language practice.
Working things out for themselves prepares students for greater self-reliance and is therefore conducive to
learner autonomy.
The disadvantages of an inductive approach include:
o The time and energy spent in working out rules may mislead students into believing that rules are the
objective of language learning, rather than a means.
o The time taken to work out a rule may be at the expense of time spent in putting the rule to some sort of
productive practice.
o Students may hypothesise the wrong rule, or their version of the rule may be either too broad or too narrow in
its application: this is especially a danger where there is no overt testing of their hypotheses, either through
practice examples, or by eliciting an explicit statement of the rule.
o It can place heavy demands on teachers in planning a lesson. They need to select and organise the data
carefully so as to guide learners to an accurate formulation of the rule, while also ensuring the data is
intelligible.

79
o However carefully organised the data is, many language areas such as aspect and modality resist easy rule
formulation.
o An inductive approach frustrates students who, by dint of their personal learning style or their past learning
experience (or both), would prefer simply to be told the rule.

Research findings into the relative benefits of deductive and inductive methods have been inconclusive. Short
term gains for deductive learning have been found, and there is some evidence to suggest that some kinds of
language items are better 'given than 'discovered'.
Moreover, when surveyed, most learners tend to prefer deductive presentations of grammar. Nevertheless, once
exposed to inductive approaches, there is often less resistance as the learners see the benefits of solving
language problems themselves. Finally, the autonomy argument is not easily dismissed: the capacity to discern
patterns and regularities in naturally occurring input would seem to be an invaluable tool for self-directed
learning, and one, therefore, that might usefully be developed in the classroom.

80
81
82
Advantages:
A situational context permits presentation of a wide range of language items. The situation serves as a means of
contextualising the language and this helps clarify its meaning. At the same time the generated examples
provide the learners with data for induction of the rules of form. Students can be involved in the development of
the presentation as well as in solving the grammar 'problem': this makes it less dry than a traditional grammar
explanation.
Moreover, the situation, if well chosen, is likely to be more memorable than a simple explanation. All these
factors suggest that this approach rates high in terms of efficacy.

Disadvantages:
If students are in the wrong mind-set they are unlikely to do the kind of cognitive work involved in the
induction of grammar rules.
This kind of presentation also takes more time than an explanation. Time spent on presenting language is
inevitably time spent at the expense of language practice, and it is arguable that what most students need is not
the presentation of rules but opportunities to practise them. Thus, the generative situation loses points in terms
of its economy. And it also requires a resourceful teacher who not only is able to conjure up situations that
generate several structurally identical sentences, but who has also the means (and the time) to prepare the
necessary visual aids.

Example:
Teaching should have done using a generative situation
Step 1:
By means of a picture on the board (a drawing, photo, or picture cut from a magazine) the teacher
83
introduces a character she calls Andy. She draws a rough map of Australia, placing next to it a picture
of a four-wheel drive vehicle. She elicits ideas as to how these pictures are connected, establishing the
situation that Andy has decided to drive across the Australian desert from the east to the west. She
elicits the sort of preparations a person would need to make for such a journey. Students suggest, for
example, that Andy would need a map, a spare wheel, lots of water, a travelling companion, food, a
Step 2:
The teacher then explains that Andy made no preparations. He didn't take a map, he didn't take water, the
travelled alone, etc. She asks the students to imagine what happened. Using their ideas as well as her own, she
constructs the following story:
Andy set off, got lost, got very thirsty, set off in search of help (leaving his vehicle behind), got trapped by
sudden flood waters, etc. The police set out in search of him but couldn't find him because he had abandoned
his vehicle and left no note. The teacher checks these facts by asking one or two students to recount them.
Step 3:
The teacher asks the class: Well, what do you think of Andy?, eliciting answers like He was stupid. Teacher:
Why? At this point, students may venture sentences, like He must take a map. Having thus established the idea
of disapproval of past actions, the teacher models the sentence: He should have taken a map, repeating it two or
three times. The students repeat the sentence in unison and then individually. The teacher reminds the students
of the concept of disapproval by asking Did he take a map? (No). Was that a good idea? (No) So ...? The
students respond: He should have taken a map.
She then repeats this process using the example of travelling alone, eliciting, modelling, drilling, and
concept-checking the sentence: He shouldn't have travelled alone.
Further prompting elicits example sentences, such as:
He should've taken water. He shouldn't have left his car.
At strategic points, the teacher recaps the sentences that have been generated, using the words on the
board as prompts. So far, nothing has been written on the board.
Step 4:
The teacher then clears the board and writes up the following table:
He should have taken water.
shouldn’t have traveled alone.
She asks students, working in pairs, to add further sentences about tze situation t the table.
Individual students read sentences aloud from the table.
Step 5:
The teacher then asks students to imagine the dialogue when the police finally find Andy. She writes the
following exchange on the board:
Police: You should have taken a map.
Andy: I know I should. I didn’t think.
Students, working in pairs, continue writing the dialogue along the same lines, and then practice it aloud, taking
it in turns to be the police officer and Andy.

Teaching Grammar through texts

If learners are to achieve a functional command of a second language, they will need to be able to understand
and produce not just isolated sentences, but whole texts in that language.
Language is context-sentitive; which is to say that an utterance becomes fully intelligible only when it is placed
in its context.
Coursebook texts tend to be specially tailored for ease of understanding and so as to display specific features of
grammar. This often gives them a slightly unreal air, as in this example:
(Contrasting Present Progressive – “Going to” Future)
This is Mr West. He has a bag in his left hand. Where is he standing? He is standing at the door of his house.
What is Mr West going to do? He is going to put his hand into his pocket. He is going to take a key out of his
pocket. He is going to put the key into the lock.
84
(from Hornby, A.S. Oxford Progressive English Course,
Oxford University Press, 1954)
Authentic texts or classroom texts?
Advocates of authentic texts argue that not only are such specially written EFL texts uninteresting - and
therefore unmotivating - but they misrepresent the way the language is used in real-life contexts. On the other
hand, the problems associated with authentic texts cannot be wished away, either, as any teacher who has
attempted to use a dense newspaper article with low level students will have discovered. The linguistic load of
unfamiliar vocabulary and syntactic complexity can make such texts impenetrable, and ultimately very
demotivating.
A compromise position is to take authentic texts, and to simplify them in ways which retain their genuine
flavour. This is the approach generally adopted by coursebook writers nowadays. Another alternative is to write
classroom texts, but to make them more engaging than the example quoted above. In fact, with only the
slightest change, the text about Mr West could be made somewhat more attention-grabbing:
This is Mr West. He has a bag in his left hand. Where is he standing? He is standing at the
door of his house. What is Mr West going to do? He is going to put his hand into his pocket.
He is going to take a gun out of his pocket. He is going to point the gun at...
The implications of this context-sensitive view of language on grammar teaching are that:
• Grammar is best taught and practised in context.
• This means using whole texts as contexts for grammar teaching.
Advantages of using texts:
o They provide co-textual information, allowing learners to deduce the meaning of unfamiliar grammatical
items from the co-text.
o If the texts are authentic they can show how the item is used in real communication.
o As well as grammar input, texts provide vocabulary input, skills practice, and exposure to features of text
organisation.
o Their use in the classroom is good preparation for independent study.
o If the texts come from the students themselves, they may be more engaging and their language features
therefore more memorable.
Disadvantages
o The difficulty of the text, especially an authentic one, may mean that some of the above advantages are lost.
o The alternative - to use simplified texts - may give a misleading impression as to how the language item is
naturally used, again defeating the purpose of using texts.
o Not all texts will be of equal interest to students.
o Students who want quick answers to simple questions may consider the use of texts to be the 'scenic route' to
language awareness, and would prefer a quicker, more direct route instead.
No single method of grammar presentation is going to be appropriate for all grammar items, nor for all learners,
nor for all learning contexts. A lot will also depend on the kind of practice opportunities that the teacher
provides. In the next chapter we will look at a range of practice types.
Teaching Grammar through stories
Everyone loves a story. Stories can be used for both eliciting and illustrating grammar points.
The former employs inductive reasoning, while the latter requires deductive thought, and it is useful to include
both approaches in lesson planning. In addition, a well-told story is the perfect context for a structure-discourse
match, but the technique can also be used effectively for a structure-social factor match. Storytelling is one of
these extremely versatile techniques, and once you get the hang of it, it can be a convenient and natural
grammar teaching tool.
You may even find that it is the technique that holds students' attention best, as well as the one they enjoy most.
Grammar points can be contexualized in stories that are absorbing and just plain fun if they are selected with the
interest of the class in mind, are told with a high degree of energy, and involve the students. Students can help
create stories and impersonate characters in them.

85
Students will certainly appreciate and respond to your efforts to include them in the storytelling process, but
they will also enjoy learning about you through your stories.
Stories should last from one to five minutes, and the more exaggerated and bizarre they are, the more likely
students will remember the teaching points they illustrate.
Storytelling is traditional in almost all cultures. We can tap into that tradition for a very portable resource and a
convenient and flexible technique for teaching any phase of a grammar lesson. A story provides a realistic
context for presenting grammar points and holds and focuses students’ attention in a way that no other
technique can. Although some teachers are better at telling stories than others, almost any of us can tell stories
with energy and interest. Students naturally like to listen to stories, and most are remembered long after the
lesson is over.
Some rules for teaching grammar
What conclusions are to be drawn about the teaching of grammar? Here are some rules of
thumb:
• The Rule of Context:
Teach grammar in context. If you have to take an item out of context in order to draw attention to it, ensure that
it is re-contextualized as soon as possible. Similarly, teach grammatical forms in association with their
meanings. The choice of one grammatical form over another is always determined by the meaning the speaker
or writer wishes to convey.
• The Rule of Use:
Teach grammar in order to facilitate the learners' comprehension and production of real language, rather than as
an end in itself. Always provide opportunities for learners to put the grammar to some communicative use.
• The Rule of Economy:
To fulfill the rule of use, be economical. This means economising on presentation time in order to provide
maximum practice time. With grammar, a little can go a long way.
• The Rule of Relevance:
Teach only the grammar that students have problems with. This means, start off by finding out what they
already know. And don't assume that the grammar of English is a wholly different system from the learner's
mother tongue. Exploit the common ground.
• The Rule of Nurture:
Teaching doesn't necessarily cause learning - not in any direct way. Instead of teaching grammar, therefore, try
to provide the right conditions for grammar learning.

• The Rule of Appropriacy:

Interpret all the above rules according to the level, needs, interests, expectations and learning styles of the
students. This may mean giving a lot of prominence to grammar, or it may mean never actually teaching
grammar at all - in any up-front way. But either way, it is your responsibility as a teacher to know your
grammar inside out.
Some conditions
The Rule of Nurture argues for providing the conditions for grammar learning. What are these conditions? If the
answer to this much disputed question could be reduced to a handful of essentials, they would probably be
these:
• The input learners get:
will it be presented in such a way that the learners are likely to engage with it, thus ensuring a reasonable
chance of it becoming intake?
• Their output:
will it be of sufficient quantity and/or quality to ensure that they have opportunities to develop both accuracy
and fluency?
• The feedback they get: will it be of the type and quantity to ensure that some of their attention is directed at
form?
86
• Their motivation: will the content and design of the lesson be such that learners are motivated to attend to the
input, produce optimal output, and take account of the feedback?
Here are six teacher “confessions”. Which rule did the teacher break, in each case?
1. I explained it and drilled it - and still they made mistakes. So I explained it and drilled it again.
2. I taught my business class the present perfect continuous using a fairy tale.
3. I presented the rules of adverb order, and then we did some exercises in the book. Tomorrow I'm going to do
the second conditional.
4. They don't have any problems with the past tense, but I'm going to teach it again because it's in the book.
5. I gave them five sentences in different tenses and asked them to work out the difference. Then we did some
sentence gap-fill exercises.
6. The presentation took about 40 minutes. That left me ten minutes for the role play. What’s wrong with the
following example?

87
GRAMÁTICA COGNITIVA PARA LA ENSEÑANZA DEL ESPAÑOL COMO LENGUA
EXTRANJERA

Este proceso de aprendizaje puede tener lugar en un contexto de instrucción o a través de la exposición a la
lengua y/o la inmersión en el país donde esta se habla. El primer caso se refiere al concepto de «lengua
extranjera» (LE) y el segundo se conoce como «segunda lengua» (L2)4. La asimilación de una LE/L2 puede
darse de dos formas:
o bien la lengua se aprende (es decir, conscientemente y a través de instrucción) o bien se adquiere
(inconscientemente y a través de la exposición a input comprensible en la L2) (Krashen, 1985 y 1989).
Doughty (2004) enfatiza la importancia de comparar la eficacia de diferentes metodologías y acercamientos a la
gramática para que puedan arrojar luz sobre cómo desarrollar la interlengua (IL) del aprendiente. Los
argumentos en favor de este punto de vista estipulan que la instrucción podría influenciar una serie de aspectos:
• Las estrategias de procesamiento de los aprendientes. La instrucción motiva las que promueven el crecimiento
de la IL y trata de alterar las que son negativas y dificultan o retrasan la comprensión de estructuras.
• Motivación para el aprendizaje, aplicando metodologías que fomenten un progreso que el aprendiente pueda
ver, y trabajando con tareas que permitan al aprendiente hacerse cargo de su propio desarrollo lingüístico.
• También el grado de fluidez al que el aprendiente puede llegar en las fases finales de su aprendizaje. Esto se
consigue con programas de enseñanza que se centran en ofrecer práctica controlada para corregir, modificar y
consolidar el conocimiento adquirido.
• En contextos de inmersión, la instrucción permite al estudiante ejercitar y desarrollar su IL en un ambiente
controlado que le ayudará a lograr precisión y corrección en la LE.
• Si el aprendiente no se encuentra en inmersión lingüística, los cursos de lengua proveen a los estudiantes con
suficientes oportunidades y la calidad necesaria para aprender la lengua extranjera con éxito.

1.3. Instrucción gramatical desde el punto de vista de la adquisición

de segundas lenguas
Considerado uno de los «puntos calientes» en ASL, el tema de la gramática es fuente de polémica8. ¿Se
necesita gramática en el aula de L2/LE? Si la respuesta es afirmativa, ¿qué tipo de gramática y cuánta?
VanPatten & Lee (2003: 123) hablan sobre los usos tradicionales de la gramática en las aulas americanas
(aunque sus opiniones son fácilmente trasladables a otros países) y la describen como «mayormente mecánica,
con un foco exclusivo en utilizar una forma gramatical para producir algún tipo de enunciado». Los años
ochenta y noventa del pasado siglo vieron nacer al llamado enfoque comunicativo, en el que la gramática
apenas tenía presencia en el programa de clase y, si se enseñaba, era de manera casi «clandestina», sin
referencia específica a metalenguaje y con el foco en nociones lingüísticas que se expresaban a través de formas
(ver Santos Gargallo, 1999, para una revisión histórica de las metodologías de enseñanza en E/LE).
Hoy en día, sin embargo, se ha reconsiderado el papel de la gramática y se están llevando a cabo intentos de
reconciliarla con el enfoque comunicativo, aunque la cuestión continúa siendo problemática, pues muchos
profesores tienden a considerar la gramática como una serie de formas lingüísticas desconectadas entre sí y que
pueden usarse en muchos contextos. Esta perspectiva puede tratar las categorías lingüísticas (tiempos verbales,
tipos de oraciones, sintagmas, etc.) independientemente de su significado o como unidades con significado que
cambian según el contexto (Byrd, 2005, revisa y discute estas y otras ideologías que los profesores tienen).
Visto lo anterior puede afirmarse que hay muchos temas que necesitan de investigación para poder
comprenderse y desarrollarse mejor.
Entre otras, es necesario revisar la afirmación de que la gramática conduce a la precisión lingüística (es decir, al
uso correcto de estructuras gramaticales) y a la fluidez —que, de acuerdo con Byrd (2005: 551), es la «habilidad
de comprender fácilmente y participar en la comunicación,que generalmente es hablada»—, siempre y cuando
el aprendiente esté lo suficientemente motivado para trabajarla ula de LE, Byrd señala que la cuestión más
importante relativa a la instrucción gramatical tiene su fondo en el foco: ¿foco en la forma o foco en las formas?
1.3.1. El foco en la forma

88
El término «foco en la forma» (en adelante FonF) lo acuñó por primera vez Long a finales de los años ochenta
del siglo XX. Su intención era buscar un hueco apropiado para la gramática dentro del enfoque comunicativo.
La hipótesis del input (Krashen, 1985 y 1989) y la noción de adquisición natural que imperaba en ASL tenían
enorme presencia en el aula de LE, pero la idea de que una instrucción explícita pudiera ayudar a los
aprendientes a acelerar su proceso de adquisición había empezado a ganar atractivo.
En la línea anterior, el FonF se basa en la siguiente cuestión: si los aprendientes deben percibir algún aspecto
del input en L2 pero por alguna razón no lo hacen o no pueden hacerlo, entonces se necesitará una instrucción
(fundamentalmente centrada en tareas de negociación e interacción) que los «reconduzca» para que lo consigan:
«Tal tipo de feedback atrae la atención del aprendiente hacia las discrepancias que ocurren entre el input y el
output, es decir, hace que se centren en la forma y puede promover la percepción de los tipos de estructuras para
las que una pura dieta de input comprensible no es suficiente» (Long & Robinson, 1998: 23).
Sin embargo, es importante distinguir entre FonF y foco en las formas.
Este último enfoque es el que tradicionalmente se ha utilizado para componer el currículum de L2/LE y está
dividido en unidades que tratan las formas gramaticales como elementos básicos separados de significado y
contexto. La distinción primaria entre ambos tratamientos de la gramática se encuentra en que el FonF «implica
actividad previa con el significado antes de que la atención a los aspectos gramaticales sea efectiva» (Doughty
&Williams, 1998b: 3), mientras que con el foco en las formas el trabajo con los significados no es un requisito.
Según Long & Robinson (1998), el FonF «consiste en un desplazamiento ocasional de la atención a los aspectos
lingüísticos codificados— por los profesores y/o uno o más estudiantes—, producido porque se perciben
problemas de comprensión o producción» (pág.23). De esta forma, el FonF9 establece una relación cognitiva
entre el aprendiente y la forma lingüística, y permite así un procesamiento basado más en percepción y en
comprensión, y menos en memorización.
Así, se hace posible trabajar en el input que aparece (accidentalmente o indicado por el profesor) en el aula
comunicativa y hace que las formas lingüísticas sean más notorias para que el alumno pueda prestarles atención.
Cadierno (2008), después de revisar tratamientos de gramática presentes durante los últimos treinta años en el
aula de L2, concluye que el FonF es el mejor tipo de instrucción gramatical, pues con él se pueden unir la
presentación de contextos comunicativos con las formas lingüísticas y sus significados, y favorecer así que el
aprendiente preste atención a las CFS que pueden y deben hacerse. De hecho, el capítulo 2 introducirá una de
las operalizaciones posibles del FonF que están presentes en la literatura de ASL, aunque ciertamente no sea
el único disponible10: la instrucción de procesamiento (VanPatten, 1996, 2002a, 2004 y 2007).
9. Para una revision histórica del FonF y de los diferentes acercamientos que este trata en la literatura de ASL,
se recomienda la lectura deWilliams (2005). 10. Otros modelos teóricos que utilizan el FonF como aplicación al
aula de L2/LE incluyen la teoría de adquisición de destrezas de DeKeyser (DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996;
DeKeyser, 1998) o la hipótesis del output de Swain (1998a y b; también 24 Izumi & Bigelow, 2000).

Doughty (2003) afirma que la investigación debería dar prioridad a trabajar con formas de instrucción que,
mediante el foco en la forma, estudien el procesamiento de L2. Pica (2005) no solo se muestra de acuerdo con el
argumento anterior, sino que además expresa de manera certera la visión que domina el presente trabajo:
«Los investigadores deben también desarrollar formas de operacionalizar y estudiar los procesos de
reestructuración e internalización que ocurren después de que los aprendientes han percibido el input
y lo han procesado como intake. Las intervenciones [pedagógicas] diseñadas para estimular estos procesos no
solo proveerán información sobre la progresión de input-intake-reestructuración-internalización, sino que
servirán como base para [crear] materiales y actividades que pueden aplicarse según las necesidades del aula»
(pág. 277).
El presente estudio, entonces, intenta profundizar en la instrucción gramatical del aula de L2/LE y combina para
ello dos marcos de trabajo de la ASL con el objetivo de crear un acercamiento gramatical metodológico a la
selección modal: la instrucción de procesamiento (IP; ver capítulo 2) y la gramática cognitiva (GC; ver capítulo
3). La razón de esta unión es dar a los estudiantes las herramientas necesarias para comprender claramente la
lengua y los usos de las formas meta, precisamente porque pueden entender su misma naturaleza.

89
Robinson & Ellis (2008: 7) señalan que «algunos aspectos de una L2 requieren conciencia y/o atención a la
forma lingüística —el aprendizaje implícito no es suficiente para una ASL con éxito— y el foco en la forma
mejora el ritmo y maximiza los logros en L2». Dado que el modo es un aspecto tan complejo del E/LE (ver
capítulo 4), los argumentos que abogan por usar metodologías de foco en la forma justifican la elección de la IP,
pues la investigación en su marco de acción continúa creciendo (ver tabla 2.1 en el capítulo 2) y prueba que
la IP da a los aprendientes la oportunidad de procesar formas meta por medio de actividades con un input que ha
sido estructurado de una forma especial para aumentar las posibilidades de desarrollo en la IL y una eventual
adquisición. La IP identifica problemas de procesamiento existentes y trata de resolverlos, asegurándose así de
que la conexión de forma y significado se realiza correctamente en las actividades estructuradas que se diseñan
para ello (y que en este trabajo se aplicaron tanto a input como a output). De esta manera aumentan las
posibilidades de que los aprendientes comprendan la forma meta y la procesen con éxito, incluso con efectos a
largo plazo.
La visión del lenguaje que propone la GC se centra en la relación inseparable que existe entre forma y
significado y que representa el lenguaje como parte de nuestro sistema cognitivo general. De esta forma, todos
los hablantes (nativos y no nativos) expresan significado sobre la base de cómo perciben la realidad y de cómo
quieren expresar su perspectiva. En palabras de Robinson & Ellis, el lenguaje «puede primar diferentes
elementos en el teatro de la conciencia para potencialmente relacionar muchas historias y perspectivas
diferentes
sobre la misma escena» (2008: 3). Desde esta forma de concebir la lengua, la gramática deja de ser un
conjunto arbitrario de formas y reg as que se usan en contextos (significativos o no), y pasa a convertirse en la
herramienta necesaria que permite a los aprendientes construir una nueva realidad en la L2 por medio de
conexiones de forma y significado (CFS). Con la GC es posible encontrar otras maneras de operacionalizar
estas conexiones para que los estudiantes no tengan que trabajar con listados de formas y puedan manejar
valores de operación que reduzcan todos los contextos posibles a una decisión formal basada en su intención
comunicativa.
Así, dentro del campo cognitivo, la gramática operativa11 (GrOp; Ruiz Campillo, 2007a y b y 2008) permite al
aprendiente ser dueño de su comunicación y dominar en cada momento qué quiere decir y por qué.
Por medio de la combinación de los enfoques anteriores pueden definirse ya varios de los objetivos que el
presente trabajo se ha fijado: • Hacer a los estudiantes conscientes de la naturaleza del modo verbal y de los
propósitos comunicativos que implica (en lugar de tratar su gramática en el aula como una tarea más a
completar durante la instrucción, al lado e independientemente de otras tareas como la expresión oral o escrita).
• Llamar su atención al hecho de que, para comunicar ideas con éxito y significativamente en la L2, necesitan
utilizar indicativo o subjuntivo y que de ninguna manera el uso de uno u otro modo es irrelevante.
• Afirmar rotundamente que lo que dicta la selección modal no es la relación entre el modo y una miríada de
contextos —expresar duda, hablar de sentimientos, desear, comunicar rutinas, información compartida, etc.—,
tal y como se enseña en el aula de E/LE actual (ver capítulo 4), sino que hay una perspectiva más amplia
que incluye el objetivo de comunicación del propio aprendiente.

11. La gramática operativa es un enfoque gramatical destinado a la enseñanza de formas. Consiste en buscar
valores de operación prototípicos que permitan reducir la mayor cantidad de usos posibles de una forma
lingüística determinada para manejarlos con un mínimo de estos valores. Así, el aprendiente podrá ser capaz de
producir un número ilimitado de enunciados sin tener que aprender cada contexto de uso individualmente.
• Preparar a los aprendientes para superar las barreras de procesamiento a las que se enfrentan por medio de
información explícita sobre estrategias de aprendizaje, dirigiendo su atención hacia el camino correcto para
procesar con éxito.
• Asegurar que las CFS de la selección modal se fijan con la práctica estructurada en tareas de interpretación y
producción, pues de esta manera se consigue un acercamiento más completo a la realidad del aula de E/LE.

90
Sin embargo, para que la adquisición tenga lugar no basta con exponer al aprendiente a un input cualquiera, sino
que este tiene que ser comprensible, pues «aunque la comprensión no garantiza la adquisición, la adquisición no
sucede si la comprensión no tiene lugar»
(VanPatten, 2007: 115). Por eso, aun teniendo las condiciones necesarias y favorables, el aprendiente no será
capaz de descifrar todo el contenido del input, sino que se fijará en ciertos elementos mientras que otros le
pasarán desapercibidos y serán ignorados. Para poder asimilar input es necesario que el significado que se
transmite y su referente, es decir, la forma lingüística, se detecten y ensamblen conjuntamente en la mente del
hablante.
Este acontecimiento, parte del procesamiento, se conoce como «conexión de forma y significado» (CFS) e
implica la comprensión de una forma. Por tanto, cuando una CFS tiene lugar puede hablarse de input detectado
y que, si se procesa con éxito, podría llegar a convertirse en intake12. El intake es toda «información lingüística
que se procesa [correcta o incorrectamente] y que se mantiene en la memoria activa [del aprendiente] para
subsiguiente procesamiento»
(VanPatten, 2002a: 757). Por tanto, el intake es el input que el aprendiente ha detectado y que podría ser
conocimiento que se incorporara eventualmente a la IL del hablante, que es el sistema de conocimientos de la
lengua extranjera.
Una vez conocido el proceso anterior, las preguntas lógicas que se hará el lingüista (quien les dará más
relevancia si además es profesor de LE) son: ¿cómo y por qué se procesan las formas?, ¿por qué algunas
formas se procesan con facilidad y otras presentan enorme resistencia?, ¿qué hace que una forma sea
«procesable»?
Dar respuesta a estas preguntas es el objetivo del modelo de procesamiento del input (VanPatten, 1996, 2002a,
2004a y b, y 2007). El procesamiento del input (PI) estudia «las estrategias y mecanismos que los aprendientes
utilizan para vincular una forma lingüística con su significado y/o forma» (VanPatten, 2004: 1) y tiene que ver
con la transformación de intake desde el input durante la comprensión (VanPatten, 1996). La figura 2.1 muestra
los procesos en ASL, primeramente presentados en VanPatten & Cadierno (1993a y b):

SegúnVanPatten (2004), la ASL no puede reducirse a un solo modelo ni a una sola fase, sino que se compone
de múltiples procesos que cuentan con otros subprocesos interrelacionados y que funcionan en cada uno de los
niveles que la adquisición supone. La figura anterior ofrece una visión panorámica y muy general de los
procesos de adquisición.
El primer proceso (I) es una fase inicial donde los aprendientes se enfrentan al input en la lengua meta y, por
medio de la comprensión, pueden fijarse en parte de ese input para derivarlo en intake con las CFS. El PI
representa este primer proceso. A través del segundo proceso (II), el intake se reestructura y se acomoda para
poder ser parte de la IL, lo que quiere decir que el aprendiente incorpora y almacena el nuevo conocimiento,
reorganizando el ya existente.
Para definir lo que hace que unas formas lingüísticas sean más «procesables » que otras, el PI propone una serie
de principios que se refieren a las estrategias que intervienen en el procesamiento del input de los aprendientes.
Wong (2004: 34) puntualiza que el objetivo de los principios es determinar: «a) en qué se fijan los aprendientes
en el input y por qué; b) qué estrategias definen cómo se hacen las conexiones de forma y significado, y c) por
qué los aprendientes hacen unas conexiones de forma y significado antes que otras». La lista más actual de
principios y sus correspondientes subprincipios (salvo omisión involuntaria) se presenta a continuación13:
• Principio 1. Principio de la prioridad del significado (P1).

91
Estipula que los aprendientes procesan el input primero por su significado antes de hacerlo por su forma, lo cual
quiere decir que un aprendiente, al encontrar input, dará prioridad a las llamadas «palabras de contenido»
(sustantivos, adjetivos, verbos) y centrará sus recursos de procesamiento en comprenderlas, por lo que otros
aspectos del input (como por ejemplo la morfología verbal) le pasarán desapercibidas o serán ignoradas
mientras la capacidad atencional se centre en los aspectos léxicos de la información disponible. Un ejemplo
clásico es el de los aprendientes en niveles iniciales, donde los alumnos son capaces de decir Ella se llama o Yo
me llamo como una sola unidad en bloque que conocen y utilizan para presentarse.
Sin embargo, el estudiante es incapaz de analizar la expresión en términos de concordancia sujeto-predicado,
flexión verbal o incluso de identificar el pronombre personal del objeto.
Este principio contiene, además, seis subprincipios, que describen las estrategias de procesamiento de los
aprendientes en el marco de la prioridad del significado:
• a) La prioridad de las palabras de contenido.
Los aprendientes siempre asimilarán las palabras de contenido antes que las funcionales, fundamentalmente
porque este tipo de palabras (verbos, sustantivos, adjetivos...) son acústicamente más prominentes que las
preposiciones o los artículos, por ejemplo.
• b) Preferencia léxica.
Los aprendientes procesarán los elementos con carga léxica antes que los que son más gramaticales cuando
ambos codifiquen la misma información. Es necesario matizar que el término «preferencia » no se refiere a un
procedimiento conscientemente ejecutado por el aprendiente. Lógicamente, no todo puede procesarse a la vez
y todas aquellas formas que, a pesar de haberse percibido, no tengan una carga léxica lo suficientemente fuerte
se desecharán de futuro procesamiento (VanPatten, 2004), aunque esto no tiene por qué ser indefinidamente.
Este subprincipio puede ejemplificarse con el modo subjuntivo del español, ya que a menudo la oración
principal puede ya contener información léxica valiosa que el modo (en la subordinada) se limita a confirmar.
En [1] Me interesa cualquier objeto que sea naranja, los aprendientes tenderán a prestar atención a cualquier
antes que a sea, así que es más que probable que el verbo en subjuntivo (que c) Preferencia por lo «no
redundante».
«Los aprendientes tienen más probabilidad de procesar marcadores gramaticales significativos antes que los que
no son significativos »14 (VanPatten, 2007: 120). Entendiendo «redundancia» como «dos o más elementos en
un enunciado o discurso que codifican la misma información semántica» (Farley 2005: 7), los aprendientes
tenderán a dirigir su memoria de procesamiento hacia el primer elemento, es decir, el «no redundante». Este
subprincipio guarda mucha relación con el anterior. Retomando el ejemplo anterior, el aprendiente, al oír
cualquiera dejará de prestar atención a cualquier otro elemento que tenga que ver con lo desconocido, pues ya
tiene la información que necesita para comprender el enunciado. Sea, entonces, como marcador más gramatical
que léxico, tendrá menos posibilidad de convertirse en intake.
Es en este subprincipio que el concepto de «valor comunicativo» o «significatividad»15 cobra importancia. El
valor comunicativo de una forma se define como «la contribución relativa que una forma hace al significado
referencial de un enunciado y se basa en la presencia o ausencia de dos características» (VanPatten, 1996: 24).

e) La disponibilidad de recursos.
Se refiere a la capacidad memorística destinada al procesamiento que los alumnos tienen disponible cuando
atienden al input. Supone que si el alumno es capaz de entender con facilidad un enunciado, es porque este se
encuentra equilibrado con el nivel del alumno, quien entonces todavía tendrá disponibilidad de recursos en su
memoria para procesar la estructura meta que contenga. Por el contrario, si se sobrecarga al alumno con
enunciados complejos o demasiado largos, este utilizará todos sus recursos en la comprensión del mensaje y no
quedará «espacio» para la fijación y procesamiento de nuevas formas.
VanPatten (2002a) enfatiza la importancia de la capacidad memorística (working memory en inglés) de los
alumnos a la hora de entender cómo y por qué procesan algunas formas sobre otras: «Los aprendientes solo
pueden llegar hasta cierto punto con su capacidad de memoria antes de que se les acaben los recursos
atencionales y la memoria activa se vea forzada a deshacerse de información para dejar paso a la siguiente»
(pág. 757).
92
La solución al problema de la capacidad de almacenaje en la memoria del aprendiente, en opinión de ambos
autores, es simple:
«Menos palabras desconocidas en el input requieren menos procesamiento de ítems léxicos noveles, lo que a su
vez supone dejar libres otros recursos para procesar formas gramaticales» (VanPatten, 2004a: 12).
MacWhinney, por su parte, cita varios estudios que prueban su comentario cuando señala que, «evidentemente,
los adultos rendirán mucho mejor en la extracción de formas léxicas y de reglas si no están abrumados con
demasiado input» (2005b: 18). Tener este principio en mente, entonces, es de vital importancia para poder
ayudar al aprendiente a procesar formas meta que por sí solo no es capaz.

f) La localización de los elementos dentro de la oración.

«Un avalado universal de procesamiento es que las posiciones inicial y final de un enunciado son más notorias
si se comparan con las posiciones medias (Barcroft &VanPatten, 1997; Clahsen, 1984; W. Klein, 1986; Rosa &
O’Neill, 1998; Slobin, 1985). Las formas en la posición media, por ello, podrían no recibir suficientes recursos
atencionales como para iniciar una CFS» (VanPatten, Williams & Rott, 2004b: 13).
Este es uno de los subprincipios de mayor relevancia para el modo verbal, la estructura meta que motiva el
presente estudio. La posición de la forma meta dentro de la oración es crucial para su procesamiento y
f) establece que los alumnos procesan con más facilidad aquellos elementos que se encuentran en posición
inicial del enunciado, siguiendo con aquellos que se encuentran al final y adjudicando mayor dificultad a los
que están en la posición central (o media) dentro del enunciado. La relación del modo con la subordinación
coloca sus verbos en la difícilmente accesible posición media. Este subprincipio afectó de manera fundamental
al diseño de los materiales de trabajo usados en esta investigación.
• Principio 2. Principio del primer sustantivo17 (P2).
Este principio, que suscitó la primera investigación realizada dentro del modelo de PI (VanPatten & Cadierno,
1993), formula que los aprendientes serán más proclives a procesar el primer sustantivo o pronombre que
encuentran en un enunciado como el sujeto agente y activo de ese enunciado.
Para resumir esta sección, los aspectos más importantes del modelo del procesamiento del input pueden
concentrarse en los siguientes puntos:
• Al entrar en contacto con el input en una LE, los aprendientes primarán la comprensión de significado sobre la
de la forma.
• Procesar input quiere decir establecer conexiones entre una forma lingüística y el significado que representa.
• Para comprender el input el aprendiente pone en marcha mecanismos de procesamiento que suponen un
desgaste de los recursos memorísticos y de atención, lo cual hace que no todas las formas se procesen igual ni
en el mismo momento.
• La capacidad de atención y memoria del aprendiente es limitada y el procesamiento se ve directamente
afectado por ella.
• Para seleccionar las formas que puede procesar y las que no, el aprendiente hará uso de unas estrategias, las
cuales le llevarán a seleccionar los marcadores por su mayor valor semántico, es decir, a seleccionar más por
contenido que por forma.
• El procesamiento de formas es sensible a su colocación dentro del enunciado.
LE es costumbre arraigada ofrecer a los estudiantes la explicación de una forma gramatical y seguidamente
ponerles a practicar las formas en actividades. El centro de las actividades aquí es, entonces, la producción
y la creencia de que a través de la práctica de estructuras es posible adquirir una L2 (DeKeyser et al., 1996).
A pesar de haber pasado década y media, este sigue siendo el esquema tradicional de enseñanza formal de
LE19. Si bien hoy en día puede decirse que las actividades se han vuelto más comunicativas y orientadas a la
acción e interacción, el foco estructuralista tiene aún enorme presencia en las clases de LE en la forma que ya
en 1972 describía Paulston: «La práctica mecánica [de formas meta] debería preceder a la práctica significativa.
La práctica significativa, por su parte, debía preceder a la práctica comunicativa para cualquier estructura
lingüística»20 (VanPatten, 1996: 4). De esta manera, los aprendientes nunca llegan a entender el
comportamiento de las formas, sino que practican casi mecánicamente sus usos.

93
VanPatten & Oikkenon (1996) amplían el concepto, centrándose en la instrucción como «intervención» y en el
aspecto concreto de la información explícita, que consiste en explicaciones del profesor sobre el lenguaje,
materiales de enseñanza o cualquier otra fuente externa, y contiene la información gramatical que se les da a los
estudiantes para ayudarles a comprender el funcionamiento del lenguaje: explicaciones, tablas, aclaraciones,
cuadros ilustrativos, imágenes y, en general, cualquier información que usa metalenguaje y se centra en
aspectos concretos de la lengua. Su papel en la instrucción con IP es polémico y se analizará en profundidad
más adelante.
Otro de los términos clave, si no el más importante cuando se trata la IP, es el input estructurado (IE). El IE se
refiere a la alteración deliberada del input que reciben los aprendientes, de manera que su atención se dirija sin
obstáculos hacia el procesamiento de una forma lingüística en concreto; Farley (2005) identifica que el término
fue acuñado por Lee &VanPatten en 1995. En la segunda edición de este trabajo, Lee & VanPatten (200325)
precisan el objetivo del IE cuando dicen que «estructuramos el input para que la forma gramatical sea portadora
de significado y los aprendientes tengan que prestarle atención para poder completar la tarea» (pág. 143).
Al hablar de las actividades con input estructurado, la primera observación queVanPatten (1996) hace es que
son actividades en las que «los estudiantes no producen la forma o estructura meta. En lugar de ello, procesan
oraciones de input activamente» (pág. 63), siempre teniendo en cuenta que ese input ha sido manipulado de
forma especial.

• «La producción del lenguaje proporciona la oportunidad de que uno practique significativamente sus recursos
lingüísticos, permitiendo el desarrollo de su automaticidad a través del uso» (pág. 159).
• «Producir lenguaje fuerza a los aprendientes a reconocer que no saben o que saben solo parcialmente» (pág.
159)
• «El output da la oportunidad [a los aprendientes] de poner a prueba hipótesis, de probar formas de expresarse
y ver si funcionan » (pág. 160)
• «[El output] puede generar respuestas de los hablantes nativos que pueden dar a los aprendientes información
sobre la comprensibilidad o correcta construcción de sus enunciados» (pág.160).
• Trabaje con una estructura por vez.
• Mantenga el significado como elemento clave.

3.2.2. De lingüística a gramática cognitiva

Considerado entonces todo lo anterior, ya puede empezar a hablarse de gramática cognitiva como disciplina de
investigación dentro de la LC. Una puntualización que debe hacerse sobre la GC es que «se trata de una
gramática de base semántica que trata de estudiar el uso, el funcionamiento del lenguaje. Tal gramática se
entiende como metodológica, no constructiva, y sin una organización parcelar autonomista de sus disciplinas»
(Cifuentes Honrubia, 1994: 7). Del comentario anterior, pues, se desprenden los siguientes principios básicos,
que se desarrollarán en detalle más adelante:
• La GC tiene sus fundamentos en el significado de las formas lingüísticas y su uso en la comunicación, por lo
que entiende que la forma y el significado son conceptos que van indisolublemente unidos.
• Es metodológica, lo cual quiere decir que busca unos fundamentos cognitivos comunes en el uso de la lengua.
• Es una gramática basada en el uso del lenguaje y, por tanto, no se aplica una taxonomía estricta de sus casos.
Esto quiere decir que la GC no basa su metodología en combinatoria morfosintáctica de formas que son
independientes del significado (y que por tanto no permiten variación), sino que toma en cuenta la intención
comunicativa del hablante y organiza sus principios alrededor de la construcción de significados a través de las
formas. Hay todavía un fundamento más que define a la GC, y es el carácter simbólico del lenguaje. Este
carácter fue puesto de manifiesto por

La aportación de la GC en este caso se basa en volver a unir las formas con sus significados para que los
aprendientes puedan entender las asociaciones, las similitudes, los orígenes, las razones, los contextos
y, en definitiva, la manera de procesar el mundo que tienen los hablantes de esa LE. Se trata de darle a la
instrucción gramatical un papel fundamental en la construcción de conocimiento nuevo y de definirla como
94
«comunicación» por sí misma, y no como la herramienta descriptiva para practicar y eventualmente poder
comunicarse:
hay que considerar la gramática como medio de expresión, es decir, En el prefacio de la Gramática Descriptiva
de la Lengua se indica que:
«La gramática es la disciplina que estudia sistemáticamente las clases de palabras, las combinaciones posibles
entre ellas y las relaciones entre esas expresiones y los significados que puedan atribuírseles. Esas propiedades,
combinaciones y relaciones pueden formularse de maneras diversas y puede haber, por lo tanto, muchas
gramáticas de la Gramática de una lengua» (Bosque y Demonte, 1999: 5).

«Cuando un profesor se esfuerza por representar en la pizarra, con un dibujito más o menos afortunado, el valor
de una preposición, está haciendo gramática cognitiva. Cuando no se limita a decir que dos o tres opciones para
decir algo son “sinónimas”, sino que trata de explicar las diferencias entre ellas como diferencias de erspectiva,
está haciendo gramática cognitiva» (pág. 8).
Los ejemplos anteriores están destinados a mostrar que lo que propone la GC no es un cambio radical, sino una
adaptación que vaya de una gramática descriptiva (y prescriptiva) a una pedagógica. La gramática pedagógica
está centrada en el aprendiente y en el profesor, identifica problemas concretos de la LE y los trata desde dentro
de esa lengua. Así se evita tener que compararlos formalmente con otras lenguas para justificar su problemática,
así como de considerar esos aspectos como extralingüísticos (en el sentido de no poder ser descritos según las
reglas del sistema).

La GC, tal y como se ha visto en secciones anteriores, concibe el lenguaje como una representación simbólica
del mundo y por tanto su gramática está estrechamente relacionada con la realidad, reflejándola y ayudando a la
transmisión de significado a través de sus formas. Esto quiere decir que la gramática es el vehículo de
comunicación y no un listado de varias formas para una función o de funciones que admiten diferentes formas y
que se practican «comunicativamente » en el aula, aunque sin darle el valor necesario a su significado

La GC, tal y como se ha visto en secciones anteriores, concibe el lenguaje como una representación simbólica
del mundo y por tanto su gramática está estrechamente relacionada con la realidad, reflejándola y ayudando a la
transmisión de significado a través de sus formas. Esto quiere decir que la gramática es el vehículo de
comunicación y no un listado de varias formas para una función o de funciones que admiten diferentes formas y
que se practican «comunicativamente » en el aula, aunque sin darle el valor necesario a su significado

4.3. La enseñanza del modo verbal: problemas y dificultades

Con el paso de los años se fue viendo poco a poco que obviar la gramática no era tan recomendable ni rentable
para el aprendizaje62. Por eso, la evolución del enfoque comunicativo derivó en un resurgir de la gramática
para explicar las nociones y sus contextos de uso. Este resurgir se convirtió en el nacimiento de las llamadas
«gramáticas comunicativas» o «gramáticas de uso», donde cada caso observado es dotado de significado y
donde las reglas ya no bastan, sino que las excepciones se multiplican para dar cabida a las múltiples
explicaciones normativas

El problema de ofrecer a los aprendientes un listado como el anterior implica condenarlos inevitablemente al
aprendizaje memorístico, desprovisto de toda lógica y sentido y gobernado por una normativa procedente de la
observación formal de la lengua, con una regla para cada caso de uso (e ineludibles excepciones). Esta lista de
usos variados y arbitrarios del modo verbal no solo imposibilita la adquisición de un código lingüístico
manejable para el aprendiente, sino que excluye cualquier posibilidad de uso real de la lengua, puesto que el
no nativo siempre encontrará un ejemplo en el input que anule y cuestione sus reglas, todas ellas aprendidas a
base de memorización y mucha práctica.

VANPATTEN, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory

95
and Research. Nueva Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
VANPATTEN, B. (2002a). Processing Instruction: An Update. Language
Learning, vol. 52(4), págs. 755-803.
VANPATTEN, B. (2002b). Processing the Content of Input-Processing
and Processing Instruction Research: A Response to DeKeyser, Salaberry,
Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, vol. 52(4), págs. 825-
831.
VANPATTEN, B. (Ed.) (2004a). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research,
and Commentary. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VANPATTEN, B., WILLIAMS, J., ROTT, S. & OVERSTREET, M. (Eds.) (2004b).
Form-Meaning Connections in Second Language Acquisition. Nueva
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VANPATTEN, B. (2004). Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition.
En VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research,
and Commentary. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, págs. 5-32.
VANPATTEN, B. (2007). Input Processing in Adult Second Language
Acquisition. En VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in Second
Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum,
págs. 115-136.
VANPATTEN, B. & CADIERNO, T. (1993a). Explicit Instruction and Input
Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 15(2), págs.
225-243.
VANPATTEN, B. & CADIERNO, T. (1993b). Input Processing and Second
Language Acquisition: A Role for Instruction. The Modern Language
Journal, vol. 77(1), págs. 45-57.
VANPATTEN, B. & OIKKENON, S. (1996). Explanation versus Structured
Input in Processing Instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
vol. 18(4), págs. 495-510.
VANPATTEN, B. & SANZ, C. (1995). From Input to Output: Processing
Instruction and Communicative Tasks. En Eckmann, F., Highland, D.,
Lee, P., Mileham, J. & Rutkowski, R. (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition
Theory and Pedagogy. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, págs.
169-185.
VANPATTEN, B. & WILLIAMS, J. (2007). Theories in Second Language
Acquisition: An Introduction. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

96
TFM Mar Garcia delgado

97
98
https://haytipos.com/gramatica/

1. Tipos de gramática en el aula de ELE

3.1 Gramática didáctica

3.2 Gramática comunicativa
3.3 Gramática descriptiva
3.4 Gramática sistémica

2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277273146_El_papel_de_la_gramatica_en_la_ensenanza-
aprendizaje_de_ELE
https://www.academia.edu/3399250/Communicative_Approach_and_grammar
https://www.academia.edu/32054459/The_Effect_of_Grammar_Consciousness-
Raising_Tasks_on_EFL_Learners_Performance

99
 The Role of Grammar Instruction in a Communicative ApproachAuthor(s): Tracy David TerrellSource: The
Modern Language Journal, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 52-63Published by: Blackwell Publishing on
behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language TeachersAssociationsStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/329834Accessed: 05/11/2010 20:10Your

INPUT AND ACQUISITION THE DOMINANT MODEL FOR SECOND LAN-guage instruction in the
United States in the seventies and early eighties has been described as a "cognitive" approach. The
theoretical model that underlies the approach is that a lan-guage consists of a "set of rules" with an asso-
ciated lexicon. It follows logically from the model that foreign language students must learn rules of
grammar. The suggested se-quence is: study a rule (usually with instructor explanation), practice a rule
(in grammar exer-cises), and then apply the rule in meaningful interactions in the target language.
Krashen (13) has proposed a model of second language acquisition in which the processing of input,
rather than grammar instruction, plays the pivotal role. His hypothesis is that acquisition occurs when
learners process input in a low anxiety context. Learners presumably make use of a mental language
acquisition device that allows them to store and produce utterances in the target language. Krashen does
not attempt to specify how the acquisition process unfolds, but rather describes the con-ditions necessary
for it to take place. He posits that the learner must be relaxed (have a low "affective filter") and be
focused on meaning rather than form. The input must be compre-hensible and in addition be at an "i +
1" level, that is, slightly more complex than the learner's current level of knowledge. An explicit knowl-
edge of grammar by adults is said to be useful in only one way --as a "monitor" for self-cor-rection under
certain circumstances, to wit, that the learner "know the rule" to be applied, that the learner be focused
on correctness, and that the learner have time to think about apply-ing the rule to the output. Krashen
has also suggested that grammar study may lower the affective filter for some adults and indirectly
contribute to the acquisition process. The major implication of this "input model" is that learners' output
is supposedly based directly on the input they process and store. Children acquiring a first or second
language seem to do what Krashen's model predicts: there is usually a silent period in which chil-dren
appear to "build up" competence which is later displayed in their speech. While this model appears to
describe in broad terms how children acquire language, adult second language learners vary greatly in
the strategies they use for second language acquisition. Some adult learners indeed do seem to rely
heavily on input for their output. They experience a rather long silent period and do not attempt much
speech until they have built up some competence.

In summary, some informal evidence exists that adults do not automatically use input to develop competence in
the way Krashen has suggested. The question then naturally arises as to the role of grammar instruction in adult
second language acquisition. If some adults do not process input as Krashen suggests then it may also be the
case that a conscious knowledge of grammar may play a greater (or even lesser) role in language acquisition
and processing than Krashen posits.

GRAMMAR AND METHODOLOGY I use the term "explicit grammar instruction" (EGI) somewhat
loosely to mean the use of instructional strategies to draw the students'attention to or focus on form
and/or structure. The role of EGI in a second/foreign language class in the United States has changed
drasti-cally in the last forty years--as the favored methodology changed from grammar-transla-tion to
audio-lingual, then from audio-lingual to cognitive, and finally from cognitive to communicative
approaches. The grammar-translation approach concen-trated on grammar skills, in particular the
ability to use grammatical terminology to describe the various morphological and syntac-tic principles of
the target language. With the advent of audio-lingualism, instructors were not supposed to spend a great
deal of time talk-ing directly about target language grammar rules. The oral input available to the
students in the form of dialogues and pattern drills, how-ever, was highly structured, following a strictly
ordered grammatical syllabus; and, in fact, most of the students' time in an audio-lingual course was
100
spent drilling grammatical forms and structures. Proponents of the "cognitive approach" stressed that
students should under-stand the rules for using target language forms and structures before they
attempted to use them for communication.' With the advent of the popularity of various communicative
approaches, especially in ESL classes in this country and also in foreign lan-guage classes in Europe
based on a notional-functional syllabus, the predominant role of grammar as the organizing principle in
a lan-guage class has been called into question.
In most communicative approaches direct and explicit grammar instruction has been accorded a
somewhat peripheral position in the total course design. The central position of com-municative (or at
least meaningful) activities in the class is supported by research such as that reported in Bialystok, who
found that "func-tional practice facilitated performance on all four tasks examined. . . . formal practice
was effective only to a limited extent." The disfavor of a heavy grammar focus in the class is at least
partially due to the influ-ence among language instructors of Krashen's "monitor" hypothesis, which
posits that the role of explicit grammar knowledge is limited to that of a "monitor," or editor, which
some speakers are able to use in writing or prepared speech, but which is not very useful in ordinary con-
. versation.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10597911.pdf

https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/antologia_didactica/gramatica/peris06.htm

https://www.academia.edu/35877741/La_gram%C3%A1tica_en_la_clase_de_ELE_Consideraciones_sobre_su_valor_en
_la_ense%C3%B1anza_y_c%C3%B3mo_presentarla

https://www.google.com/search?q=FOCUS+ON+MEANING+NOT+IN+FORM+GRAMMAR+TEACHING&oq=FOCUS+ON+M
EANING+NOT+IN+FORM+GRAMMAR+TEACHING&aqs=chrome..69i57.12676j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.academia.edu/3399250/Communicative_Approach_and_grammar

https://www.google.com/search?q=types+of+form+focused+instruction&oq=types+of+form+focused+instruction&aqs=
chrome..69i57.437j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=TEACHING+GRAMMAR+focus+on+meaning+approach&oq=TEACHING+GRAMMAR+f
ocus+on+meaning+approach&aqs=chrome..69i57.4896j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

101