Problems of teaching grammar of the second foreign language
К содержанию номера журнала: Вестник КАСУ №2 - 2011
Автор: Васильева Т. А.
Many linguists and
language teachers believe that pedagogic grammar is an important aspect of
second language acquisition (SLA); however, others believe that a foreign
grammar cannot be taught explicitly. There are several theories that try to
explain the difference between grammar acquisition in first and second language
as well as the properties of Universal Grammar (UG) that make learning a
foreign language possible.
Based on our own
classroom experiences and years of studying languages, we believe that the
current methods of explicit grammar instruction in the classroom are not
conducive to learning a foreign language. We believe that textbooks do not
follow the advice or research of linguists regarding grammar acquisition and,
in effect, make learning a foreign grammar harder than it needs to be.
Before research
began on language learning, methods used to teach foreign languages in the United States were based on the Classical Method previously employed for teaching Latin and
Greek. The studying of classical languages was thought of as "mental
gymnastics" and "indispensable to an adequate higher education."
Students were forced to memorize declension and conjugation patterns,
vocabulary lists, and other grammatical rules. Translations and drills remained
the only use of the language, while pronunciation and conversational skills
were ignored. Opponents of this method maintain that there is no theoretical
basis or practicality to the Classical Method (also known as the
Grammar-Translation Method). Yet it remains the most popular teaching method
because it does not require that teachers be experts or even fluent in the
language, and it is the easiest gauge of foreign language ability that can be
determined by standardized tests.
A major aspect of SLA theory is the Natural Order Hypothesis that states "the acquisition of grammatical
structures proceeds in a predictable order." Observations of students
learning English as a first or second language indicated that certain
grammatical morphemes were acquired before others. Furthermore, distinctions or
differences among native language did not seem to interfere with this order of
grammatical acquisition (e.g. native speakers of Chinese and German learned
English morphemes in relatively the same order).
The Larsen-Freeman
order of grammatical morpheme acquisition for learners of English in a natural
setting is as follows:
- ing;
- copula;
- article;
- auxiliary;
- short plural;
- regular past;
- third person
singular;
- irregular past;
- long plural;
- possessive.
In comparison, the
Larsen-Freeman order of grammatical morpheme acquisition for learners of
English in a structured, classroom setting is as follows:
- copula;
- auxiliary;
- third person
singular;
- -ing;
- regular past;
- irregular past;
- article;
- long plural;
- short plural;
- possessive.
Another hypothesis
of SLA is Krashen's Acquisition-Learning Distinction. According to Krashen,
acquisition is more related to the development of first language abilities
while learning describes the development of second language abilities.
Acquisition is a subconscious process of implicit or natural learning. This
term is applied to the way in which humans learn their native language without
the use of formal rules or instruction. On the other hand, learning describes
the conscious study and knowledge of grammatical rules that are most often
associated with foreign language education. As seen by the discrepancies between
Larsen-Freeman's two orders of acquisition, there is indeed a difference
between these two manners of obtaining the grammar of a language. Although by
analysis of these data, the difference does not seem that extreme.
Although English
has been the most studied language with respect to acquisition of grammatical
morphemes, research on grammar acquisition has also been done on other
languages such as Russian and Spanish that confirm the validity of the Natural
Order Hypothesis. The orders presented by Larsen-Freeman can only be applied to
those students learning English, but a basic understanding of a natural order
can be applied to other languages as well. This order may not be the same,
however, because of the differences in grammatical features of the diverse human
languages. Further research needs to be done so that these natural orders can
be discovered and utilized in the teaching of foreign languages. Originally, my
research was to include these other natural orders, but I was unable to find
any research pertaining to the languages I was studying. So I decided to focus
instead on the way grammar is taught in general in classrooms and how it is
presented in textbooks.
The Inductive
presentation of grammar allows students to form generalizations about grammatical
rules after oral and written practice of examples given in class. Acquisition
may occur quickly and after little exposure with this approach; however, some
students are too easily confused if the rules are not presented directly before
practice is required. Those students benefit more from the Deductive approach,
in which the teacher presents the grammatical patterns and then the student is
given ample time to become familiar with them. Whereas the Inductive approach
works best with regular patterns, the Deductive approach works best with
irregular patterns, "for these by their very nature cannot be discovered
through analogy." The Deductive approach does save time for the teacher
and the class; nevertheless, a major drawback is the tedious and technical
presentation of grammar that may bore or frustrate the student if he doesn't
understand the rules.
Although these two
basic approaches to teaching grammar seem to correlate to Krashen's acquisition
vs. learning, Krashen states that both approaches are indeed learning and not
acquisition. With Inductive learning, students focus on form and not meaning.
The rules are learned consciously and the student analyzes the structural
components of the message instead of the message itself. Conversational courses
often employ the Inductive approach with little focus on the grammatical rules,
although students still do learn the rules and are consciously aware of them.
This fundamental difference between Krashen's acquisition and the teaching
approach of induction is often overlooked by those who employ the Inductive or
Implicit method to emulate native language acquisition in the foreign language
classroom.
Similarly,
opponents of teaching explicit grammar maintain that this method only teaches
about the language and not the actual language itself. As Omaggio stated, this
method "sends a clear message that the focus of the lesson is on talking
about the language rather than on talking in the language. "14 Students
learn the linguistics of the language but not how to communicate easily or
effectively. They may be consciously aware of the rules and how to use them
most of the time, at least in writing, but they are unable to speak with any
real fluency. "Use of the conscious grammar... is limited to easily
learned, late-acquired rules, simple morphological additions that do not make
an overwhelming contribution to communicating the speaker or writer's
message".
Therefore, as
Krashen maintains, it is unfair to "emphasize accuracy on communicatively
unessential, late acquired items in the beginning language classes, with
students who are unable to understand the simplest message in the second
language." Emphasis should be put on learning to understand and communicate
effectively in the language, rather than on analyzing texts for their
grammatical value or writing styles. If students are unable to say or write the
simplest phrases in the target language, they should not be expected to read
and analyze literature in the target language either. Yet the natural
progression in foreign language education is from courses that focus on basic
grammar and conversation to courses that require intellectual and sound
analyses of foreign literature, although students may not even be prepared to
do so in their native language. Most students do not do well in these courses
because they lack a basic understanding and comprehension of the grammatical
structures, as well as basic vocabulary, of the language. Requiring students to
be fluent in the target language before studying texts written completely in
that language would decrease frustration and dissatisfaction with those
students' foreign language education.
Writing in a
foreign language is often easier than speaking for those who have learned
grammar explicitly, yet teachers still expect students to perform perfectly in
speech. There is a basic difference between competence and performance however,
that teachers need to be more aware of. The conscious knowledge of a
grammatical rule has no direct relationship to the speaker's ability to use it
in free speech, especially not for a nervous student who is forced to speak in
front of the class or who is being evaluated and judged for a grade. There are
cases of students who write a foreign language with near-fluent abilities, but
who also make several mistakes while speaking. Krashen attributes this to his
Monitor and Input Hypotheses which state that students make corrections only
when they are consciously aware of them and that students should not be
required to speak in the target language until they feel comfortable to do so
(i.e. they have acquired enough "comprehensible input"). Furthermore,
Krashen's fifth hypothesis, Affective-Filter, claims that students who
experience low anxiety and high self-confidence will have a greater success at
learning a foreign language.
Second Language
Acquisition theories of grammatical acquisition are often based on simplicity
and frequency of occurrence, yet "it is not at all the case that the more
linguistically simple an item is, the earlier it is acquired. Some very
'simple' rules may be among the last to be acquired." An example of an
apparently simple rule is the possessive -s in English. Yet in both of
Larsen-Freeman's orders of acquisition, the possessive remains late-acquired.
In addition, just because some grammatical forms occur often does not mean they
will be easy to learn or teach. For example, verbs with separable prefixes are
very common in German and Dutch, but they are not easy for students to learn,
so they are not taught until near the end of the language course.
Another facet of
foreign language learning that needs to be addressed is the hierarchy of
difficulty "by which a teacher or linguist could make a prediction of the
relative difficulty of a given aspect of the target language." Two levels
that present particular problems with learning foreign grammar are under differentiation
and over differentiation. With under differentiation, "an item in the
native language is absent in the target language." For example, the
present tense has three forms in English, but sometimes only one in other languages
(such as French and German). On the other hand, over differentiation is the
opposite, i.e. an item exists in the target language but not in the native
language. The case system markers for nouns are barely existent in English, but
thrive in Germanic and Slavic languages. This hierarchy attempts to make possible
the predictions of how easy or difficult it will be to learn a certain foreign
language.
Yet another
feature of foreign language learning that classes and textbooks seem to ignore
is the importance of the knowledge of native grammar before attempting to learn
a foreign grammar. If students do not know the jargon particular to grammar in
their native language, they will not know the vocabulary in the target language
either. Basics of the native language or of grammar in general, should always
supplement and precede the explanation of foreign grammar. In addition,
requisite knowledge of earlier grammatical rules needs to be reinforced.
However, textbooks often do not have the space to review earlier rules before
presenting new ones. Therefore, ample class time must be devoted to this task.
Based on several
semesters of foreign language study, we do not believe that current methods of
teaching grammar in the classroom are sufficient enough for acquiring the
abilities to survive in a second language. Textbooks teach grammar inadequately
by only focusing on the simple rules by which they hope students will not be
confused. Real world knowledge of a foreign language is ignored in favor of
written techniques that will only encourage the student to read. The Classical
Method is still very much alive in the foreign language educational system,
although it has never proven itself to be a practical or successful method of
learning a foreign language.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Allen, Edward David and Rebecca M. Valette. Classroom Techniques: Foreign
Languages and English as a Second Language. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanich,
1977.
2.
Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 4th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
3.
Cook, Vivian. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. New York:
Routledge, Chapman and Hall, 1991.
4.
Di Donato, Robert, et al. Deutsch Na Klar! An Introductory German Course. 2nd
ed. New York:
5.
2001. Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition. New York:
6.
1995. Mitchell, Rosamond and Florence Myles. Second Language Learning Theories.
New York:
7.
Oxford University Press, 1998. Omaggio, Alice C. Teaching Language in
Context: Proficiency-Oriented Instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1986.
К содержанию номера журнала: Вестник КАСУ №2 - 2011
|