Topic 12 – The concept of grammar: Reflections on language and language learning.

From normative grammar to grammar according to language.

Use and communication.

The concept of grammar may be compared to the one of the tools a carpenter uses in his
workshop every day. When new, the dazzling tool serves its purpose smoothly and
beautiful pieces of furniture come out from the workbench, to the satisfaction of both
creator and customer. However, as time goes by, and use slowly leaves its imprint on the
tool, it becomes dark, matt, and its edges are blunt. Finally, there is a time when the old
tool must be done away with, and a new one, similar to it or slightly improved, must take
its place in order to continue the work.
Since the Greeks, the term grammatica has been used to define the study of the language
and its literature. In this unit, a reflection of the concept of grammar is made, as well as
an attempt for its definition. Special emphasis will be placed on the role of pedagogical
grammars, as they are those which will be directly applied in language teaching practice.
In the second section, a historical survey of the development of the goals of grammatical
study, its tools and its advantages and disadvantages will be provided, as well as a brief
comment on the implications for language teaching proposed or derived from each theory.

The definition of grammar is perhaps one of the worst obstacles in linguistics. Perhaps
one of the easiest definitions provided is that of the dictionary. According to the
MerriamWebster Collegiate Dictionary, grammar shows different meanings: First, it
is the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in
the sentence; it also refers to the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a
language, as well as the system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a
language. Thirdly, the grammar textbook itself. Therefore, in the meaning of the word
grammar we distinguish four different senses: The linguistic elements and the rules by
which they are combined in a specific language. The discipline which studies those
elements. The different explanations of these rules and elements according to certain
theories. The printed version of those rules or explanations. Focusing on linguistics,
definitions do not get much more precise. Brinton (2000) holds that the term is used to
refer to the rules or principles by which a language works. According to many linguists,
speakers of a language have an internalized grammar which allows them to speak a
language (their competence), whereas the fact that they can articulate the rules of the
language depends on whether they have received formal linguistic education or not. The
study of grammar, for the purpose of describing its elements and rules is known as
descriptive grammar. On the other hand, prescriptive grammar involves attempts to
establish and maintain a standard of correctness in the language, to prescribe (dictate)
and proscribe (forbid) certain ways of speaking. Prescriptive grammar involves factors
external to language such as social class or level of education. Nevertheless, it has been
severely criticized and almost all the contemporary studies are based on a descriptive
approach. There is still some controversy among linguistics on a specific definition of
grammar as no definite conclusion has been reached.
There are a number of linguistic myths, or fallacies, concerning the nature of grammar,
which should be clarified. The first of them has to do with the fact that there are languages
with no grammar or little grammar. As a matter of fact, every language has a grammar.
It is true that there are different types of grammars, but they are all equally operative and,
of course, communication is possible among their speakers. Another topic is that certain
types of grammars are simpler and more primitive than others, while other grammars are
more complex and, therefore more advanced. Falsified by the discovery that primitive
languages had extremely complex grammars. The number of variant forms of the English
verb, for example, is quite small. Compared to Spanish, for example, the English verb is
inflectionally very simple, but the auxiliary phrase in English is very complex. Another
frustrated idea is that grammars should be logical and analogical (regular). In fact,
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries grammarians tried to eliminate supposedly
illogical features of English grammar. Another myth is that changes in grammar result in
deterioration or evolution. Of course, languages change over time. However, changes
do not suppose any kind of advancement or loss. Furthermore, changes in language are
not entirely random, but often proceed in certain predictable ways.
Defining grammar, then, is not a straightforward matter. A basic, working definition may
be that grammar is that dimension of the language system that is concerned with words
and how they can be combined in various ways.
Of particular interest to us is the type of grammar known as pedagogical grammar.
According to Nunan (1991), pedagogical grammars are intended to provide those
involved in language teaching (including learners) with information on the grammar of
the language for the purposes of teaching and learning, syllabus construction, materials
development and other related factors. Whereas descriptive grammar will relate to one
particular view of language, the pedagogical grammar can be eclectic, drawing on more
than one theory (Brinton, 2000). A pedagogical grammar aims not so much at theoretical
consistency, but at accessibility, efficiency and usefulness. Indeed, it admits that the
theoretical framework it adopts may be open to criticism for that reason. A topic is usually
revised in later sections in greater detail, and it is assumed that sections will be studied in
consecutive order (Greenbaum, 1996). Consequently, the role of the language teacher in
designing the pedagogical grammar is fundamental: He/she must analyse the needs of
his/her learners and design a course in which the grammatical component is in accordance
to what is expected and needed by them.
The place of grammar in the language classroom is currently rather uncertain. This
uncertainty has been caused by the development of communicative approaches to
language teaching. In traditional language classrooms, learners received systematic
instruction in the grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation of the language as these were
introduced. The contrastive hypothesis which establishes that learner’s first language
has an important influence on the acquisition of a second language, provided an important
guide to the selection and sequencing items for instruction (James, 1980). However,
reality contradicted the contrastive analysis predictions. The researchers concluded that a
universal order of acquisition existed which was driven by an innate learning process.
Accordingly, Krashen (1983) set out a number of principles derived from the morpheme
studies, as well as other SLA research contributions (summarised in Nunan, 1991): There
are innate processes which guide L2 acquisition; exposure to natural in the target
language is necessary for the subconscious processes. The richer the learner’s exposure,
the more rapid and comprehensive the learning; the learner needs to comprehend the
content of natural communication in the new language; a silent phase at the beginning
of language learning has proven useful for most students in cutting down on interlingual
errors and enhancing pronunciation; the learner’s motives, emotions and attitudes show
what happens in the language classroom, or outside it; the influence of the learner’s first
language is negligible in grammar.
In the late 1980’s, a revision of the role of grammar in language teaching appeared in a
trend known as Grammatical Consciousness-Raising. This school rejects the split
between conscious learning and subconscious acquisition and it attempts to situate the
grammatical structures and elements within the broad context of discourse. Grammatical
Consciousness-Raising sees classroom activities as being basically inductive rather than
deductive. This new concept leads to systemic functional grammar which has had a
profound influence in language teaching. It argues that language exists in context, and
that the context and purposes for which language is used will determine the ways in which
language is realised. The approach begins with whole texts and works down to individual
grammatical items. In other words, when the teacher wants to focus on a particular
grammatical item, that item is introduced within a particular context, and learners work
from context to text to sentence and clause. The teaching of grammar from a systemic
functional perspective has a number of major benefits.
We may move on now to some practical proposals for the presence of grammar in the
classroom. Ur (1988) argues in favour of explicit teaching. She claims that it is a valuable
mean for acquiring the ability to communicate in a language. In fact, she presents a fairly
traditional four-stage approach to the teaching of grammar items: presentation (structure
is pointed out from an input text in which it appears), isolation and explanation (the
different aspects of the structure are dealt with), practice (students absorb and master the
language), test (learners can demonstrate their level of mastery). The Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages does not approach the teaching of
the grammar as a point itself, and allows for the choice of the teacher on the methodology
used in the classroom. The Spanish educational regulatory documents advocate for a
communicative approach to language teaching, but do not give clear guidelines as for the
role of grammar in language teaching. Admittedly, there is no clear indication as to how
to achieve it. Thornbury (1999) contrasts the two opposing views which have coexisted
in foreign language teaching in the second half of the twentieth century: those who focus
on formal teaching and those who focus on communication. Advantages of grammar
teaching: the “Sentence Generator” argument (grammar is the description of
regularities in the language, its fulfilment provides the learner with the means to generate
sentences), the previous awareness argument (structure awareness is a necessary
condition in order to acquire a linguistic unit), the correction and accuracy argument
(construction of meaning, especially in written language, asks for precision in order to
avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding), the fossilization argument (learners without
formal instruction may fossilize their knowledge, whereas learners who have formal
instruction do not); the discrete units argument (the complexity of language is articulated
in categories and functions that help learners apprehend it), the instrumental value of
rules argument (if grammar is a system of rules which can be learned, the language
teacher may design a structured system which can be taught and assessed un a methodical
way), the learner’s expectations attitude (learners often expect to get grammatical
instruction in situations of formal instruction). Disadvantages of grammar teaching:
the “know-how” argument (mastery of a language is the mastery of its use: it is an
experimental knowledge), the acquisition hypothesis (Krashen distinguishes between
acquisition as an unconscious process and learning, a conscious one. Learning a language
is always a process of acquisition), the Natural Order Hypothesis (knowledge of a
language develops in a natural order, grounded on the universal grammar which all
humans possess), the communicative argument (knowing a language is more than just
knowing its grammar, it is also to know how to use it. Language use allows speakers to
learn the rules of use), the meaningful units argument (acquisition is produced from
complex lexical or syntagmatic units, which are later analysed into simpler components),
the learner’s expectations attitude (learners often expect to get a teaching of languages
based on use).
According to Nunan (1991), there are three different views on what it means to “teach”
grammar; the first is that teaching grammar requires the formal explanation of grammar
rules. The second view is that teaching grammar is basically a matter of providing
learners with practice in mastering common grammatical patterns through a process of
analogy rather than explanation. The third view is that teaching grammar is a matter of
giving students the opportunity to use English in a variety of realistic situations.
Zayas (1996) also suggests four principles in teaching; the first is that grammatical
reflection is just a component of language teaching. The second is that grammatical
reflections must be focused on the linguistic features of the text (oral or written). The
third is that the instructional design of units must include grammatical contents within a
global task focused on language use. The fourth is that the assessment of grammatical
knowledge must address the learner’s ability to use these procedures in their own use of
language, and to explain his/her choices.
After this brief survey on the role of grammar in language teaching, we may be tempted
to ask: “Which is the best?”. Nunan provides a sensible answer: “It all depend”. The
choice of the teacher’s methodology must be influenced by a number of considerations
which include contextual (model of grammar favoured by educational authorities,
textbooks, teaching resources), learner (model of grammar the students are familiar with,
age of the students, level, reasons for learning English, educational background) and
teacher variables (level of proficiency in English, familiarity with a particular grammar,
teaching style, beliefs about learning).
In this survey on the development of grammar theories from the normative grammar to
grammar according to language use and communication, we will limit ourselves to the
major grammatical paradigms: traditional grammar, structural grammar, transformational
generative grammar, and functional grammar. Traditional grammar is widely
understood as a model developed by the Ancient Greeks and which was predominant in
linguistics until the early twentieth century, to be followed by Structuralism, which was
supplanted by transformational grammar, which in turn has been superseded by
functional grammar (Darewianka, 2000). However, probably it would be more
adequate to understand that there is a Western tradition in grammar (Bell, 1981), which,
over the centuries, has derived into many different approaches to grammatical
description, providing the foundations for most of our modern grammars. Halliday
(1976) maintains that throughout the Western history there have been two major
approaches to grammar: the formal (Aristotle’s theories in seeing language as a set
constituent classes: syllables, articles, nouns, verbs, conjunctions, and their rules of
combinations) and the functional (early sophist in Ancient Greece were concerned with
meaning and saw language as a communicative resource).
The term traditional grammar is generally used to refer to a number of grammars that
are primarily concerned with language as a set of rules. The basic terminology and system
of classification was based on the work of early philosophers such as Aristotle and
Dionysious Thrax: from their works, we have inherited concepts such as active and
passive voice; tense; subject and object; or subject-verb agreement.
When vernacular languages began to be written in the Middle Ages, grammarians took
the classical grammars as the norm (Latin was regarded as a language if special
excellence). In the sixteenth century, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England,
there was a nationalistic explosion in England, and English became a symbol of
nationalism. It was necessary, then, to establish the purity of the language and to define
correct English use. In consequence, normative grammars were written as it was a major
concern for the middle class, who wanted to speak correctly and orderly. Without another
reference, and following the tradition, grammarians applied the rules of Latin to the
English language, and when the rules did not suit, a new rule was created. In fact, when
we think of normative, traditional grammar we tend to think about the school grammar
of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with a definite structure: it names the parts
of speech and sets out rules of how they fit together, according to the rules of Latin. Their
approach is clearly prescriptive, appealing for the necessity of a standard language and
specifying rules of usage and correctness.
Traditional grammar divides sentences into parts and labels the parts. At the level of the
word this is called parsing (words divide into nouns, verbs, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs,
prepositions, and conjunctions), and at the level of the sentence it is called analysing
(sentences are generally analysed into subject and predicate).
The teaching approach generally associated with traditional grammar has been the
Grammar-Translation Method. The ultimate goal of the method is the study of the
literature and culture associated with the foreign language. It was developed primarily for
the teaching of reading and translation. The methodology regards the language as an
object of study rather than as a tool to be used. They learn the rules, learn lists of
vocabulary and the translation of each vocabulary item, memorise grammatical patterns,
and translate sentences and passages from one language to the other. Traditional grammar
provides students with a basic way of talking about language using common terminology.
Students can identify the basic parts of the sentence and they can be efficient by learning
a set of rules from which they can generalise. For the teacher, it does not imply excessive
time or training, as the textbook is the basic material.
In the 1930s linguistics recognised that traditional grammar lacked the rigour required for
scientific respectability. Structuralists were more concerned with patterns of language in
use and with describing each language on its own terms “from the sound system through
to the whole utterances”. Their approach gave rise to the school known as Structuralism.
Structuralists saw speech as primary: in the first stage of structural linguistics, scholars
focused on analysing the sound system. After the study of phonetics and phonology,
Structuralists then turned their attention to words, breaking them down into their
component parts: morphemes. The next step was to look into phrases, clauses and
sentences. Sentence patterns are important in structural grammar. Also, the sentence is
divided into its parts until the process cannot be continued any further and the
fundamental building blocks of the sentence have been reached.
Structural grammar provided a linguistic description that derived from real-life linguistic
behaviour, dealt with aspects of oral language, that analysed patterns and structures.
Students are provided with a basic structure and are required to change certain elements.
Programmes are designed so that they start with the easiest structures and work up
towards the more complex ones. Errors have to be eliminated immediately to avoid
fossilization, and the use of L1 is discouraged. Language teaching is, then, based on the
construction of habit formation exercises based on sentence patterns, and the method
came to be known as Audiolingualism.
Structuralism brought a fresh perspective to the teaching and learning and it focused on
an emphasis on oral language which was necessary. Moreover, it did not use the Latin
framework for its description and it also provides a detailed description of the phonology
and morphology of English as it uses authentic language as its database. However, it
might be claimed that the analysis of a relatively small sample of instances of language
cannot account for the entire language system.
Noam Chomsky claimed that structural grammar dealt only with the surface features of
language and brings out the concept of Transformational Generative Grammar
(TGG) which argues that the learner’s innate knowledge of the universal rules oof
language constitutes his/her competence. Therefore, when a learner is exposed to a
particular language, the deep underlying rules enable them to quickly pick up the specifics
of that language.
Chomskyan syntactic theory has evolved over the past few decades, and has become so
complex and abstract that it is almost of no use to SLA.
Chomsky argued that language was learned by using it, by being immersed in language
in use.
TGG provides a framework for relating mind and grammar. It emphasises its universal
characteristics, and clarifies how certain structures and complex sentences are formed.
However, the theory is seen as too abstract and remote for teachers, so that it is frequently
ignored.
Following the TGG, Halliday introduces the Functional Grammar with which he tries
to develop a model of grammar which provides a clear relationship between functions
and grammar systems, and describes language in terms of three metafunctions or macro-
functions: the ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual. Halliday’s model sustains that
languages evolve to enable humans to achieve their social purposes. In each particular
situation, there are features affecting the kinds of grammatical and lexical choices: the
subject matter or field of discourse; the roles and relationships or tenor; and the channel
of communication or mode. A particular combination of these three variables (field, tenor
and mode) is known as register. The analysis under a systemic-functional perspective
involves looking at the whole text. The emphasis on language use and expression of
meaning in the 1970s and 1980s led to the development of functionally oriented
syllabuses. Wilkins (1976) distinguished six functional categories: judging and
evaluating, persuading, arguing, reasoning, expressing personal emotions, formulaic
expressions, conceptual categories include notions and modal meanings (time, quantity,
apace, roles, certainty, commitment). The functional-notional syllabus has had a
significant influence on second language teaching. Functional grammar places the
emphasis on using language to achieve real-life purposes, and identifies the grammatical
features necessary to fulfil them. It also introduces the influence of the context and a
description of the relationship between function, meaning and grammar. On the negative
side, systemic functional theory is perhaps too complex and inaccessible for teachers.
Related to recent theories we have corpus studies, which started to provide evidence of
language use. A theory of English, then, is grounded on the evidence rather than trying
to impose a theoretical model on language. Then, we also have approaches that place lexis
at the heart of language learning. Lewis distinguishes between correct language and
successful language (which is efficient when used). Universal grammar concerns the
properties that are common to all human languages (for example, that all languages have
nouns).

Having analysed the different views on the concept of grammar, the diverse views on its
purposes, its tools and its implications for linguistics and language teaching, it is now the
teacher’s turn to choose the appropriate treatment of grammar in the language classroom.
The choice will probably depend on the teacher’s own conceptions about grammar, but
the decision must take into account his/her student’s needs, the educational goals of the
institution, the resources available, and the different learning styles in the classroom,
among others. Therefore, he/she should be as familiar as possible with a variety of
grammar theories in order to evaluate their usefulness for various teaching contexts.
It is evident that the focus of the English language subject is to become fluent in the
language, but there must be a place for grammar in the classroom practice and the
curriculum. However, no indication is made as to what methodology is most suitable.

Bibliography
COUNCIL OF EUROPE. Common European Framework for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
HALLIDAY, M.A.K.: System and Function in Language: Selected Papers. London:
Oxford University Press, 1976.
KRASHEN, D. and TERRELL, T.: The Natural Approach. California: The Alemany
Press, 1983.