By María de la Lama
Frequently, in TEFL
“grammar” equals “ syntax”. Thus, for many English teachers grammar is the
teaching of how to build structures in order to
develop in students, in a later stage, the ability to
transform them when communicating.
But the linguistic concept of grammar "as the total knowledge of a
language" offers a much broader understanding of this term. Therefore, an
effective teaching of grammar should allow students not only to form
structures, but also to know how to use them in a meaningful and appropriate
way.
The
teaching of the Simple Past tense will exemplify this point . On the one hand,
when the term grammar is limited to syntax, the methodology will emphasize more
the use of the auxiliary "did" and the transformations that irregular
verbs undergo in this tense. On the other hand, a broader conception of the
term will motivate the teacher to teach other very important aspects of the
mentioned structure, such as the pronunciation of regular verbs and, what is
more important, the communicative functions of the tense.
Why is it then that this
narrow perception of the term "grammar" is still rooted in our daily
teaching? Maybe because the focus on teaching structures still works as a
security blanket for teachers. Let’s see some of the reasons why we are fond of
teaching structures:
⮚
There is a belief that if students
analyze the language they will learn it more effectively. However, the main
tenets of the Communicative approach prioritize language use over rules of
usage.
⮚
The teaching of grammar (grammar=
syntax) demands the use of schemas, charts or written exercises, activities that many teachers are keen on
doing in class.
⮚
Structures are always testable. In
fact, grammar quizzes are easy to
prepare and to grade.
⮚
This narrow conception of grammar
gives teachers a false control of the lesson performance. After all, teachers
always have the correct answer!
⮚
Teachers seem to perpetuate the way
they learned a foreign language when they teach. There has been a great
emphasis on teaching language rules during the last decades that’s way
following the Communicative approach does not seem to be an easy task.
⮚
An overemphasis on structure
formation may give students the idea that forming structures is enough to
communicate in a foreign language without focusing on other important aspects
such as pronunciation, vocabulary and use.
A good tip for preparing
our grammar lessons bearing in mind that “grammar” involves much more than
syntax, is to identify the challenging aspect of a given structure for our
students. In some cases, the pronunciation of the structure, and not its form,
will pose a challenge for adult students, such as the pronunciation of the
phonemes /s/ or /z/ in the formation of plural nouns. In other structures, the
challenging point will come from the meaning of the structures. The use of the
possessive illustrates this point as in the phrase “a month’s holiday”.
Challenging points can
arise from other aspects rather than the form of the structure. They may come
from the phonological component of the structure, from the correct
understanding of its meaning or from its use. Overemphasizing the teaching of
the form may hinder the students’ communicative competence.
Why doesn’t our teaching of
grammar move towards more communicative ways? Is the teaching of grammar our
security blanket in class?
BIODATA:
DE
LA LAMA, MARIA, Bachelor in Education, has a master's degree in Applied
Linguistics and a Bachelor's in Linguistics, both obtained at the University of
California, Davis. She also holds an MBA from Universidad del Pacífico. She
currently serves as the Director of the Language Center at Universidad del
Pacífico.
*Los mensajes y/o comentarios de publicidad u otra índole, no relacionados con el artículo, serán eliminados y reportados como SPAM*
