以下为完整的英文文章，是关于语法的概念及语法对英语教学的启示。本文首次发表在《大学英语教学》2009年第1期。
The Notion of Grammar and its Impact on Teaching English
Abstract: The possession of an adequate level of second language (L2) grammar is an essential attribute of any competent L2 teacher, especially those non-native English speaking teachers. This article first addREsses the vague notion of grammar. It then suggests a lucid L2 grammar teaching method within the framework of phonology, morphology and syntax that L2 teachers choose as the main contents for instruction unless they are faced with a selection dilemma. In this framework, semantics should not be isolated since form and meaning are inextricably interwoven. It also shows that, to some extent, the TEFL settings imply decontextualized and defunctionalized contexts in China. In dealing with these phenomena, any of the feasible L2 grammar teaching methods are seen as localized in L2 pedagogy. Finally, the article claims that explicit L2 grammar strategies may suit the TEFL conditions in Chinese tertiary schools.
Key words: second language grammar; grammar category; grammar teaching
Introduction
The notion of grammar has a long history of provoking controversy. Continuing in the tradition of more than 2000 years of debate regarding whether grammar should be a primary focus of language instruction, should be eliminated entirely, or should be subordinated to meaning-focused use of the target language, the necessity of grammar instruction is once Again attracting the attention of second language acquisition (SLA) researchers and teachers (Nassaji and Fotos 2004:126). Similarly, Hadley (2001:87) notes concerns about the two extremes of teaching. “Natural” approaches to language learning, where the teaching of grammatical rules and the use of error correction techniques are largely discouraged in the classroom, are opposed to more “cognitive” orientations toward methodology, which maintain that students must understand the basic rule system underlying the new language and receive corrective feedback in order to improve their language skills. This article addresses the notion of L2 grammar and the L2 grammar teaching issues in Chinese tertiary schools. It insists on categorizing phonology, morphology and syntax as the main contents of L2 grammar needed under TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language) conditions. The concluding part of this article advocates that explicit L2 grammar is still one of the essential constituents in L2 pedagogy.
The ambiguous notion of grammar
Second language learners cannot progress their learning without proper understanding of grammar. However, failure is more frequent than success in teaching/learning English as a foreign language. The underdog syndrome is a belief that grammars are beyond learners’ control. One reason for this is that there are so many different definitions of grammar between/among insiders and outsiders. Despite the central role played by grammar in human communication and the large number of descriptions of it by linguists, it remains a difficult term to define since, on the one hand, the word ‘grammar’ can refer to a variety of phenomena and, on the other, among grammarians there is considerable disagreement concerning its nature (Byram 2004:248). Nevertheless, there’s always the eruptive question: What does grammar include in total? Here are some hints showing several types of grammar.
On one side, a universal grammar, because of its nature of innateness and endowment, might not be of great potential interest either to language teachers or to language learners either. On the other side, universal grammar cares less about teachability and learnability. Although letting language practitioners decide its application is my first concern, it is hard to find where the breakthrough is. A generative grammar is three-faceted: syntactic, phonological and semantic (Chomsky 1965:16). The grammar of a particular language and a generative grammar focus more on knowledge about language, which is synonymous with metalinguistic knowledge (i.e. declarative knowledge of subject matter), than on knowledge of language (i.e. language proficiency). At this point, Chomsky (2009) argues:
A generative grammar is concerned with knowledge of language, but not in the sense of declarative knowledge. When we say that Barack Obama knows English, we don't mean that he can tell us what are the rules that generate an infinite array of structured expressions, assign them a phonetic and semantic structure, and establish conditions of use. These are unconscious except for the most superficial, and beyon [sic] accessibility to consiousness [sic], like the rules of vision that determine when we interpret a presentation as a cube in motion, etc. (Chomsky 2009)
Because of selection criteria of categories traditional grammar does not lack for critics. If traditional grammar were concerned mostly about rigid rules, syntax would be a big research area. Chomsky (2009) opposes this idea by stating that traditional grammar had almost nothing to say about syntax, and that it was mostly morphology, with a few observations about syntactic and semantic properties. He (ibid) adds that there were some exceptions, like Otto Jespersen, but even he could not try to formulate real rules of grammar; the concepts were not well enough understood. There is a consensus that traditional grammar consists mainly of morphology and syntax. Phonology was neglected somewhere. There seems to be a tendency to add other elements such as phonology and pragmatics (language use as well) into grammar. If grammar could possibly cover all aspects of a language, then how is language defined? In this sense, the notion of grammar remains pendent.
A pedagogical grammar may be based on some prescriptive/descriptive models or on a particular grammatical theory. This type of grammar, greatly influenced by theories of second language acquisition, tries to provide both methodologies and aims of grammar teaching. It has failed to define the grammatical properties by exclusively evaluating the performance-oriented production of L2 learners.
Researchers and grammarians have not reached a lucid exposition of the categories of grammar. Because the initial work of definition leaves many lingering uncertainties, to what extent an L2 grammar will be taught as a second step remains problematic. Taking L2 pedagogy into consideration, currently the so-called pedagogical grammar is taking tentative steps toward tackling the challenges in TEFL environments. Therefore, we cannot expect effective L2 grammar teaching before we have a better understanding of its nature. In a word, an L2 grammar, open to investigation, is still a fuzzy concept.
Insight into the nature of L2 grammar
Grammar faces many prejudices or misconceptions. The definition of grammar may originate both from explaining what grammar is and what grammar does. As a matter of fact it also involves either internalistic or externalistic views. On deciding the content of grammar, behaviourism has a more profound impact than mentalism. An L2 grammar is usually designed not only to provide teachers a teaching blueprint for any specific aspects of second language but also to promote L2 learners’ mastery of the target language. What is generally accepted is: grammar is a system, a process or a skill. Conventional or not, here are a bundle of illustrations:
A grammar contains a syntactic component, a semantic component, and a phonological component (Chomsky 1965:141).
Grammar is that level of linguistic form at which operate closed systems. [And] “Grammar” is also the name for the study of grammar; as with “level”, it is unnecessary to distinguish between “the grammar” of a language and “grammar” in theory and description – The grammar of a language can only be “defined” as that part of the language that is accounted for by grammatical description (Halliday 2007:40, 75).
Grammar is the process by which language is organized and patterned in order to make meaning (Thornbury 2005:6).
Grammaring is the ability to use grammar structures accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. To help our students cultivate this ability requires a shift in the way grammar is traditionally viewed. It requires acknowledging that grammar can be productively regarded as a fifth skill, not only as an area of knowledge (Larsen-Freeman 2005:143).
Concerning different domains, there has not been an agreement on defining grammar. There are two prejudices that need to be clarified concerning the nature of L2 grammar. The first is the categories of grammar. What is to be regarded as standard grammar and what is the status and role of other varieties (social)? How is grammar learnt and how should it be taught (pedagogical)? What is grammar and how does it work (linguistic)? The three areas suggested by Byram (2004:248) intercut and interconnect. The rationale behind the categories of grammar differentiated greatly in each area. For pedagogical purpose, I contend that at least phonology, morphology, and syntax should be categorized as the three-facet framework of L2 grammar.
The second prejudice is about the relationship between L2 grammar and semantics. Even taking the second language acquisition theories into full consideration, we could find that they devised a vacuous explanation for the nature of L2 grammar. Can a learner, in the course of second language learning, construct a L2 grammar without understanding the meaning implied in the grammatical structure or vice versa? Does the learner first generate meaning (intuitively or possibly in L1) firstly, and secondly construct the L2 grammatical structure embedded in the meaning he intends to say or write? Whether the answer is yes or no, it is difficult to verify which happens first. However, it seems that form and meaning are inextricably interwoven. The answer to these questions by Chomsky (2007) is as follows to show the relationship.
An L2 grammar is not a grammar in the technical sense of Syntactic Structures. It is not intended to be a scientific theory of a language. Rather, it is designed to help the learner acquire knowledge of the language by providing hints, examples, suggestions, etc., that enable students to use their own unconscious knowledge of language in general and of L1 to gain knowledge of L2. For these and other reasons, it would make no sense at all for an L2 grammar to avoid questions of meaning. And for L2, as in fact for the process of language acquisition in the first place, there is no doubt that form and meaning are inextricably interwoven (Chomsky 2007).
Again, for pedagogical purpose, when dealing with phonology, morphology, and syntax, there is no reason why teachers isolate each from semantics. Traditional perspectives on grammar have misled teachers into believing that “knowledge of the grammar is viewed as a set of rules” (Purpura 2004:2). Although being an independent discipline on its own, semantics per se is a pervasive and crucial element of L2 grammar pedagogy.
Implications on TEFL in China
Ambiguous concepts of grammar have a negative impact on English teaching in China. It is evident from the preceding discussion that the exploration of L2 grammar is not of strict scientific research. Rather, L2 grammar was compiled solely for pedagogical purposes of utility. Holistically, L2 grammar consists of phonology, morphology and syntax, in which semantics is not dealt with separately. However, at the further level of subcategories, there may exist many uncertainties about their contents. The arguments over grammar have influenced English teaching in China substantially. In the way of metaphor, English teachers have conflicting views about grammar. For those against grammar, L2 grammar is a horrible monster guarding the “gate of the target language garden”; teaching the L2 grammar may get the learner into all sorts of scrapes. For those in favour of grammar, it functions like a parapet or crutches that is/are necessary for L2 beginners. The consensus among English teachers is that grammar teaching is a necessity in promoting learners’ language proficiency, though the majority of English teachers have a vague notion of grammar. “What to teach as an L2 grammar” and “how to teach an L2 grammar” are thought of first and foremost for the implementation of the L2 grammar.
Phonology, morphology and syntax, which represent the distinguishing characteristics of the target language, are fundamental knowledge to English learners in China. A good option is to apply the idea of focusing on “knowledge about language” instead of “knowledge of language” to the Chinese TEFL conditions. This emphasis indicates letting learners know more about target language itself rather than language use. When explaining grammar requirements for teachers, Leech (1994) advocates that a ‘model’ teacher of languages should:
(a) be capable of putting across a sense of how grammar interacts with the lexicon as a communicative system (both ‘communicativeness’ and ‘system’ will need independent attention);
(b) be able to analyse the grammatical problems that learners encounter;
(c) have the ability and confidence to evaluate the use of grammar, especially by learners, against criteria of accuracy, appropriateness and expressiveness;
(d) be aware of the contrastive relations between native language and foreign language;
(e) understand and implement the processes of simplification by which overt knowledge of grammar can best be presented to learners at different stages of learning (Leech 1994:18).
In a similar vein, a ‘mature’ learner should have the ability to sense the L2 grammar, i.e. phonology, morphology and syntax, as the essential parts of target language knowledge rather than as just academic, theoretical or descriptive explorations. Learning grammar does not make any sense if the L2 grammar pursues the logic that there are no natural boundaries around ‘grammar’ that embrace any kind of information about words with the exclusion of most pronunciation and of most word-meaning (Hudson 1992:26). An L2 grammar, which is treated as a high generalization of the target language and a strong support to learners’ future communication, plays an important role in language teaching, but is not the whole story of language teaching in classroom practice. Given that applied linguists are not at present in a position to make firm research-based prescriptions about the detail of ‘what works’ in foreign language grammar pedagogy (Mitchell 2000:296), I suggest that the knowledge about language (phonology, morphology and syntax), as the rudiments of the subject, ought to be mediated into the whole process of language teaching at both the secondary and tertiary levels.
About the “how” issue, the current trend is towards more localized L2 grammar methodologies. Vast amounts of literature in applied linguistics have shown the complex issue of grammar teaching and have hardly reached an agreement. When discussing the current approaches to grammar teaching, Nassaji and Fotos (2004:131) suggest the tri-option strategy, in which “focus on forms” involves discrete grammatical forms selected and presented in an isolated manner; “focus on form” involves the teacher’s attempts to draw the student’s attention to grammatical forms in the context of communication. As for “focus on meaning”, they (ibid) add that focus on form through process occurs in the context of natural communication when both the teacher and learner’s primary focus is on meaning. This strategy indicates that “focus on forms” and “focus on meaning” are two extremes of grammar teaching; and “focus on form” is a sort of eclectic mediation. However, grammar teaching is constrained by a variety of factors including context and what the L2 learner is ready to acquire. In China, English learners are constrained by TEFL conditions, under which they have a quite limited-time exposure (e.g. 4-5 hours each week, approximately 1600 hours both in secondary and tertiary schools) to the target language in large classes. Recognizing the fact that English language has not yet attained a significant social function in China, the learners in universities, who are exam-driven, do not have the need to treat English as a means of communication or a lingua franca. If they did have the need, the need would be a remote one. The reality is that the teachers and the students share the same mother tongue (Chinese), which is strong enough for mutual communication. In such classroom settings, a combination of form and meaning (each potential impact is in fact a matter of degree) in L2 grammar teaching, i.e. a modified form-focused instruction, would be a better solution. In addition, the conventional 3P (presentation, practice and production) approach is still of great value in China, and in practice, as an adapted version, there has appeared the 4P (preparation, presentation, practice and production) approach with enormous vitality. The discussion here does not dwell on the specific teaching approaches, but looking back at the history of grammar teaching, it seems that when teachers were dealing with L2 grammar, form and meaning were never taught separately: even a scratch could mean something.
It should be noted that there are a variety of teaching methods available in the world. From these methods we can absorb many usable insights into L2 grammar teaching. Meanwhile, we should be alert to their pros and cons. Tickoo (2003) reminds us that:
A couple of other facts also need attention: one, that although the second half of the twentieth century gave birth to a number of methods, the best known among them were mainly responses to studied needs in their countries or contexts of origin, mainly in North America and Western Europe…transfer of methods from one linguistic and cultural context to another therefore almost always proves to be counterproductive (Tickoo 2003:394).
To a large extent, L2 grammar teaching is done in a decontextualized and defunctionalized setting. The learners in China are in “therapy” for different expectations. There are no universal or global methodologies in language education. Thus, the challenges are related to the factors and forces that are largely local, and the best methodological answers may also, in good measure, need to be local (Tickoo 2003:395). Emphasizing local factors and forces does not refer to the inverse relationship between external theories and Chinese TEFL contexts; nor does it refer to the harsh treatment of western methods with malice. On the contrary, those methods provide the sinews of SLA. The abysmal TEFL conditions may imply many unique characteristics; we can do nothing but find new ways to cope with those (usually difficult) situations, though today, satisfactory answers cannot be given to many factual questions.
Conclusion
In this article we are approaching the nature of L2 grammar; meanwhile the scope of L2 grammar and the relevant teaching method might continue to be a hot debate for lack of practical criterion. Firstly, according to Andrews (2007:61), traditional descriptive grammar has covered morphology and syntax as main contents. In the preceding discussion, I suggested that phonology, morphology, and syntax be included in L2 grammar teaching, as either descriptive or prescriptive, so as to enhance illustrations (pronunciation regulations, word formation, and sentence permutation) to L2 learners. The choice of a taxonomy depends upon the specific features of TEFL contexts. This does not indicate that other properties of language should be neglected. Within the L2 grammar teaching framework sketched out, historically, semantics has never been treated in an isolated way since form and meaning are always interconnected. Moreover, taking proper language use (on the functional and notional side) into consideration, language teachers need to know more about pragmatics as well as learners’ ethnic and cultural backgrounds etc. Therefore, many factors and hypotheses should be calculated into TEFL settings. Secondly, the principles and beliefs that underlie L2 grammar methodologies vary significantly. There is a vast literature on grammar pedagogy, but a lot of it is vacuous. “Focus on forms”, “focus on form” and “focus on meaning” methods as discussed in the previous section are basically concerned with the content of L2 grammar despite the fact that the findings of SLA research studies have confirmed that form-focused strategy is of great value. Given our present level of understanding of the abominable TEFL conditions, in particular of the nature and scope of L2 grammar, a combination of deductive and inductive solutions seems to be a better way. Furthermore, grammar teaching should be planned, systematic, supported, and embedded in meaning-oriented activities and tasks, which give immediate opportunities for practice and use (Mitchell 2000:297). What merits attention is that explicitly deductive, conscious, and overt instruction may meet the local challenges since the learners have limited time for exposure to the target language in classroom settings. Naturalistic approaches are not feasible in both decontextualized and defunctionalized TEFL contexts. During the initial stages of English teaching in mainland tertiary schools, L2 grammar teaching as an integral part of L2 pedagogy (though not to be treated as a guarantee of appropriate language use), is to ensure that learners are aware of the linguistic differences that are likely to be affected by instruction between L1 and L2 in the input.
Obviously, this discussion by no means exhausts the complexity of L2 grammar so thoroughly as to cover (1) when the focus on form(s) works most effectively to promote SLA and (2) to what extent the L2 grammar ought to be taught. Whether the limitations of L2 grammar perception are intrinsic, or whether a deeper analysis can succeed in unraveling some of those difficulties in L2 pedagogy in the TEFL predicament, remains an open question.
References
1. Andrews, S. 2007. Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Byram, M. 2004. Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.
3. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press.
4. Chomsky, N. 2007. (Chomsky@mit.edu) RE: Grammatical Notion in Semantic Terms? E-mail to Yongda Li (yongda63@hotmail.com). 23rd June.
5. Chomsky, N. 2009. (Chomsky@mit.edu) RE: A Vague Notion of Grammar. E-mail to Yongda Li (yongda63@hotmail.com). 6th February.
6. Hadley, A. O. 2001. Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
7. Halliday, M. A. K. 2007. On Grammar. Beijing: Peking University Press.
8. Hudson, R. 1992. Teaching Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
9. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2005. Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
10. Leech, G. 1994. Students’ grammar – teachers’ grammar – learners’ grammar. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn and E. Williams (eds.), Grammar and the language teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
11. Mitchell, R. 2000. Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 281-303.
12. Nassaji, H. and S. Fotos. 2004. Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 24, pp. 126-145.
13. Purpura, J. E. 2004. Assessing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Thornbury, S. 2005. Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Tickoo, M. L. 2003. Teaching and Learning English. Hyderabad: Orient Longman.
（本文首次发表在《大学英语教学》2009年第1期）
