Dear FLE 324 members,
You can choose to comment on the article 'Teaching grammar as a liberating force' if you like. Please also consider the following point in your reflection as well:
Do you find grammar as a liberating force for EFL teachers and/or students? In what ways, to what extent and why do you think so? In what ways do you agree or disagree with the author?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Today, among linguists and teachers, there are certain controversial questions about grammar such as “what is grammar?” “How grammar can be taught?”or “What is the role of grammar in the language learning?”. In the article, grammar is seen as a source which liberates the learners from an over-dependency on lexis and context for the expression of meaning. In this respect, grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force; it frees learners from the dependency on context and the limitations of a purely lexical categorization of reality. Therefore, it is a device for showing the most common aspects of meaning. At that point, the question is how grammar should be learned. Of course, this cannot be done by restricting attention to grammar’s formal properties, the relations and regularities; instead, learners need to realize the function of the grammar as a powerful resource for the purposeful achievement of meaning. In other words, grammar should be conceived in terms of meanings not forms or rules. However, that does not mean that grammar liberates us from context. On the contrary, it liberates us from the constraints of the immediate or default context. One of the most important points in here is that grammar has to be encountered in context, so that it can be used to create context, by contextualizing lexical meaning. Furthermore, the context should be real to the users, so that learners can see and acquire grammar in real-life situations. To sum up, the article adopts grammar on notional meanings that are frequent, repeated and contextual; instead of considering grammar in terms of forms, rules and structures which makes it a liberating force and which make me definitely believe in that source.
ReplyDeleteS.B
People can communicate by speaking, through written words or through body language. Each form is uniquely different from the others. While we may prefer to talk in an ungrammatical way in our mother tongue to our close friends or family members, this is not always possible in second/foreign language circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIn a foreign language context, I believe grammar has an important role in language learning contrary to what most people think. It is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary for the expression of meaning. We cannot convey meaning by only using lexical items consecutively. Although sometimes context and non-verbal features may be a great help in transmitting the message, they are not always dependable. One thing is for sure and this is that grammar helps us express what we want precisely. It enables us to communicate without depending on lexis and contextual clues. In this sense, I agree that grammar is a liberating force.
The author of the article also states that in grammar teaching there should be 3 elements. These are learner choice, lexis to grammar, and comparing texts and noticing gaps. After explaining what these are he gives 4 task types (Grammaticization tasks, synthesis tasks, dictogloss and picture composition) as examples. These task types are longstanding activities and they are very useful in grammar teaching. They all make the learners undergo a cognitive processing and therefore making the acquisition more rapid and enduring.
In conclusion learners should see grammar as an aid, not as a set of rules which restricts them from expressing meaning. The teachers have a significant responsibility in creating such awareness among learners. This awareness will free the learner from the burden s/he carries while trying to learn grammar.
Özgen BAĞCI
In many cases the teaching of grammar is cursed by many people. They say that it prevents the learners from building up a good linguistic knowledge of the second language. This may be true for the traditional grammar teaching, which relies on formulizations and heavy drills too much. However by teaching the grammar in a way that helping the learners acquire the language faster we can say that grammar in most cases reduces the overdependence on context. For example, let’s assume that a student tries to read a story and he comes across with a word like “went” he gets surprised and digs into the dictionary to find what does it mean, he may find it but he loses the time which he is supposed to understand the story. We can infer from this example that by teaching the grammar in a contextualized form helps the students get the meaning more easily. Indeed most of the time it is useful in situations like guessing the meaning of a word. If we know what grammatical category a word falls into (adjective, noun…etc) we are one step closer to guess the meaning of it.
ReplyDeleteA teacher should make sure that learners realize the function of a structure as a bridge between words and the context, as a tool for achieving meaning. I liked Garret’s ideas on that topic which says:
“In producing utterances students do not start from knowledge of how the system works; they start with a thought to be communicated. What we really want to know, then, is not what mediates between knowledge about the system and utterance, but rather what mediates between thought and utterance”
What he means here is that we should teach the grammar in a way that enabling students getting the meaning out of a context and forming a tie between their competitive knowledge of grammar and their produced utterances.
Dilara Arpacı
ReplyDelete1619832
Grammar as “a liberating force” is depicted as a resource which liberates the language user from an over-dependency on lexis and context for the expression of meaning (Widdowson, 1990). Cullen (2008), proposes three key features of “liberating grammar”, which are learner choice over which grammatical structures to use; a process of ‘grammaticization’ where the learners apply grammar to lexis; and opportunities to make comparisons and notice gaps in their use of grammar. At this point, we can assume that grammar is not a restriction to our teaching and students’ learning, but rather it can be used as a supportive element to enforce learning and comprehension. I mean, grammar may help us to transcend the limitations of the lexis and context in communication. For example, it would be harder to communicate without knowing the rules of time, duration, frequency, definiteness for us. We would not convey what we mean without knowing even these simplest rules. Therefore, grammar is crucial in order to increase the quality of the communication. Even in our native languages, without a good grammar we are not supposed as good speakers. The situation is, in my opinion, harder in learning a second language. Since it is our target language, we are supposed to use it corrctly in order to be sure whether we are understood or not. At this point, grammar is one of the first steps, whivh give us this assurance and construct confidence in using that language. Of course, I do not believe that grammar is enough one byself. Actually, the problem is how we teach grammar and how students are taught. As prospective teachers, we should teach grammar in such a way that it should not be a must in the target language but an implement to reach the goals. We should go beyond the cliché “formulas” and create an inteagrated lesson plan, in which students can enjoy and learning grammar approprately without even noticing. In this way, we can provide practicalty in other skills for our students. For example, if they know the grammar rules, we know that they will have less problems in writing and reading skills. To conclude, I believe that grammar is crucial for a complete competence in a language.
In my opinion grammar is one of the least important parts of the language. I think grammar means formality. Being stick to the rules gives nothing than waste of time. How many people speak exactly using the rules of their mother tongue? People tend to find an easier way all the time, and grammar is an obstacle on their way to communicate. It is hard to define the grammar but it is easy to define what grammar is not. Like Cullen said, Grammar, then, can be seen as a resource for the adaptation of lexis…
ReplyDeleteAccording to article, grammar is not a set of rules which I totally agree. Rules are meant to be broken. Grammar is something that breathes, something that lives. Therefore, it is not reasonable to keep it in the jar. Since we created to grammar, we are the ones who could shape it. Based on the article, grammar is a bridge for us, which gives us freedom while speaking, it saves us from dependency lexis and it helps us to be creative. The author mentions 3 elements. These are learner choice, lexis to grammar, and comparing texts and noticing gaps. They are related to cognitive and acquisition processes which are related to each other in terms of producing.
The article also says that the information given to the students do not help them to learn grammar. Sentence combining, picture compositions, or dictoglosses are also given as examples. According to the author, grammar is learned through communication. People learn it as they speak. Garret emphasize that grammar is not what mediates between knowledge about the system and utterance, but rather what mediates between thought and utterance. As I said, the speakers consider grammar as a bridge, not an obstacle to jump over. Grammar is not a set of rules but a liberating force. Grammar is Oh Captain my Captain, or Neil for us.
UGUR UZER
Pelin Aşçıoğlu
ReplyDeleteAfter reading so many articles and discussed the problems that are important to ELT,
I've understood that grammar is this kind of issue too. There are people who have different ideas about teaching grammar. However, I think instead of discussing if the rules should be given or not, it should be discussed that how they should be given. Because now we all that there are different types of intelligences, and different schools like colleges and state schools. If we really want to see the
conclusion of instent focus on grammar,
we can look at the proficien level of Turkish students. They write the same sentence or the structure for a billion time, and they cannot speak even a sentence in daily life.
Throughout their education life, they are given the rules, and the conclusion is obvious. But in colleges where students are taught grammar,
maybe using the "teaching" word is even wrong, they can both speak and write successfully. Lots of people may be surprised when they see they are taught grammar with songs, pictures, stories. But, it is the case with young learners.
I accept that with adult learners, grammar rules "must" be given as they can
think multidimensional and concrete. A good and qualified teacher will already
know about the characteristics of his/her students and behave in that way. I think the problem of the system of education is it's not being realistic. Because, we always say there are different purposes of learning foreign language, and we all know that these stuents will not wwrite formal letters and academic books every day and still we bombard them with rules. They think about the rule for half an hour when it comes to speaking and have to go to
prep. school twice during their education both in high school and university. And two years is a long time in a lifetime of a person.
Even in the prep. school of METU, they spend so much time on grammar and they end up not being able to communicate with foreign students. I know that this problem cannot be solved in a short time, however it is totally up to Englis teachers. If they are aware of the problem and want to ind a solution to it, they can really raise communicative students.
Grammar is central to the teaching and learning of languages. It is also one of the more difficult aspects of language to teach well.
ReplyDeleteMany people, including language teachers, hear the word "grammar" and think of a fixed set of word forms and rules of usage. They associate "good" grammar with the prestige forms of the language, such as those used in writing and in formal oral presentations, and "bad" or "no" grammar with the language used in everyday conversation or used by speakers of nonprestige forms.
Language teachers who adopt this definition focus on grammar as a set of forms and rules. They teach grammar by explaining the forms and rules and then drilling students on them. This results in bored, disaffected students who can produce correct forms on exercises and tests, but consistently make errors when they try to use the language in context.
Other language teachers, influenced by recent theoretical work on the difference between language learning and language acquisition, tend not to teach grammar at all like the author of the article. Believing that children acquire their first language without overt grammar instruction, they expect students to learn their second language the same way. They assume that students will absorb grammar rules as they hear, read, and use the language in communication activities. According to them teaching gramer is a liberating force.
I think this approach does not allow students to use one of the major tools they have as learners: their active understanding of what grammar is and how it works in the language they already know. However these strict rules are really boring and unnecessary according to the students. Also most of the native speakers do not use most of the grammer rules which don’t cause misunderstanding in communication. So it should be balanced. The most necessary rules should be thought and others should not be insisted.
The communicative competence model balances these extremes. The model recognizes that overt grammar instruction helps students acquire the language more efficiently, but it incorporates grammar teaching and learning into the larger context of teaching students to use the language. Instructors using this model teach students the grammar they need to know to accomplish defined communication tasks.
Grammar shouldn’t be isolated while teaching English or it shouldn’t be over emphasized; it should be seen as a resource for teaching communicative language skills. The article supports the idea that grammar is supportive element for communicative language teaching. In my opinion, grammar is only meaningful when it is taught implicitly and with using real life communication elements. Grammar teaching and communicative language teaching can be seen as complementary for each other. Just giving rules and forms don’t work to teach English or trying to communicate without grammar is also nonsense attempt for learning and teaching English.
ReplyDeleteGrammar does not liberate learners from the context in contrast it should be learned or taught in a context. As Garrett suggests in the article that it is very possible to have students practise expressing themselves in contexts which are reasonably communicative and which have certain recurrent meanings that they need to include
in order to express their own specific meanings.
In the article some activities are given such as sentence combining, picture compositions, or dictoglosses. However, Garrett says that expressing meaning is about
meaning choices being converted into formal choices and their formulation
into utterances. I agree with the idea that grammar should be taught through communication. I also want to add extra comment for the issue of teaching grammar through communication that this communication should certainly be related to the real life experiences of the learners. Because learners can internalize the meanings, forms, rules just by using their real life experiences.
Grammar is one of the most important elements in language teaching and learning. As far as I examined from my experience, grammar was the crucial part of my English learning. I can say that grammar helped me to reach this position.
ReplyDeleteIn understanding the target language grammar should be given in contextualized form and there should be three elements which are learner choice, lexis to grammar, and comparing texts and noticing gaps as the article indicates. These help the learners to obtain grammar more easily without being constrained and without rules such as S+V+O. However, learning grammar is not so easy in the traditional classrooms of our country. Most of the traditional teachers give the grammar rules as mathematics formulas which the learners have difficulty in obtaining. As my words indicate, I totally agree with the idea of grammar as liberating force which the article mentions. In my lessons, grammar won’t be constraining, painful part of language teaching. It will be relief to see the figure out the grammatical structure with their meanings from the context.
As the article indicates, grammar is not a set of rules. It is a way of making the language learning easier. As Garret emphasizes that grammar is not what mediates between knowledge about the system and utterance, but rather what mediates between thought and utterance, grammar is a tool of understanding what the structure tells us and what it means. Knowing the rules, learners only acquire formation of the structure without learning what that structure really says and where to use it.
In conclusion, grammar should be a tool which helps the students and makes their learning easier. It shouldn’t be frustrating and discouraging force for the students by having a lot of rules and constraints. In language classrooms, teachers should make the class adopt the idea that grammar is liberating force for their language learning by which the communication is provided.
I do not find grammar as a liberating force for EFL teachers and students. Although there are many controversal questions on grammar and most of them argue that grammar should be liberating, there is no way for this in our education system unfortunately. The students take exams which are all grammar based, and thus, they are supposed to know grammatical rules in detail. We can say "fate" for grammar; it is inevitable for foreign language learners. Putting so much emphasis on grammar hinders communicative language teaching. The students cannot speak fluently while thinking about grammatical rules. They cannot use language in a practical way, because all they do during their education is writing formal things. When it comes to daily life, they think for hours to make a sentence. This should not be the case. Grammar rules should be taught implicitly. The main goal in language teaching should be communication. Unless using the language in real life, it is meaningless no matter how we know grammar.
ReplyDeleteREFLECTION PAPER (OPTION 5)
ReplyDeleteTEACHING GRAMMAR AS A LIBERATING FORCE
In our day, when it is mentioned to teach/learn a foreign language, the first thing to come to mind is grammar, no matter it is argumentative to what extend it is true. However, I think learning a foreign language is to be able to use the target language in what ways you want (for communication, to get a job, to just understand, etc.)
There are too many questions about grammar and its function in teaching/learning a foreign language. The first and most argumentative one is “What is the function of grammar in ELT?” In my opinion, grammar is the key element in learning a foreign language. As it is mentioned in the article, without any grammar, the learner is forced to rely exclusively on the lexis and the immediate context, combined with gestures, intonation and other prosodic and non-verbal features to communicate his/her intended meanings. We can better explain what s/he means and it is useful to be able to communicate in a good way. I frees us from a dependency on lexis and contextual clues in the twin tasks of interpreting and expressing meanings, in addition enables us to communicate with a degree of precision not available to the learner with only a minimal command of the system. In this sense grammar is really a liberating force.
Everybody can express themselves by using gestures, body language, sounds, etc to some extend. However, grammar functions like a magic wand and helps the people communicate truly and sufficiently. To be able to make the learners gain grammar efficiency, as a prospective teacher, I propose to design the lessons so as to be able to integrate all the necessary parts wisely. For example, if I want to teach grammar, I integrate the lesson with some listening, reading or speaking, etc activities which help the learners both have fun and focus on the usage of grammar.
I totally agree with the author of this article in the sense of explaining the function of grammar in ELT and demonstrating the positive aspects of using grammar.
GRAMMAR AS A LIBERATING FORCE
ReplyDeleteThis article has a lot of important points about the use of grammar and also the importance and function of grammar in second language. I think that the concept of ‘grammar as a liberating force’ is an important point as it places grammar into an important place in the language learning process. It is stated in the article that grammar is not constraining imposition but a liberating force. I completely agree with this idea. In Turkey, English language teaching usually focuses on teaching grammar and then lexicon, but it forces the students to use a defines set of grammar and it serves as an imposition to the fixed forms of the language. The article says that learners and teachers tend to view grammar as a set of restrictions on what is allowed and disallowed in language use. I think it is valid for the English language learning system in Turkey and this idea should be changed.
The article states that without any grammar, the learner is forced to rely exclusively on lexis and the immediate context, combined with gestures, intonation and other prosodic and non-verbal features, to communicate his/her intended meanings and gives the example of ‘dog eat meat’. This expression can include a variety of meanings when its tense structure is considered. For example it could mean;
1. The dog is eating the meat.
2. A dog must have eaten the meat.
3. Dogs eat meat
The article states that it is grammar that allows us to make these finer distinctions and it generally enables us to communicate with a degree of precision. I agree with all these statements. The teachers sometimes think that teaching grammar makes the students focus only on the context and so they make use of the lexicon rather than the grammar. However, the teacher cannot make sure whether the students can precisely acquire the structure and the meaning which the structure imposes to the sentence.
The article supports the idea that output tasks which are both system-stretching, in that they push the learners to use their full grammatical resources, and awareness-raising, in the sense that they allow learners to become aware of gaps in their current state of inter-language development, are crucial elements in focusing on form. I agree that point because we can use grammar in a more effective way if we can enable the students notice the gaps and use their knowledge of language and answer the need required to complete the gap and the meaning. The method in applying grammar should enable the students to choose one of the alternatives they have learned so far and make them to improve their awareness in the second language.
The article presents three methods of grammar as a liberating force: Learner choice, lexis to grammar and comparing texts and noticing gaps. I think all the methods for applying grammar as a liberating force are effective for the language teaching. In the first method the students are given the choice to select one of the structures and use it in its proper form in the order of words. In this way, the students are not confined to a definite set of grammar structure and they can use their acquisition of English forms. In the second method, the students are included in a progress called grammaticization or grammaring. They are required to put the most appropriate grammatical structure to the sequence of words such as newspaper headline or notes of a meeting. In this way, the students are given the choice to choose the most proper structure and acquire the structures in the relation of context and meaning. The third alternative is to make the students produce something of their own and then compare it to an original structure such as a native speaker’s writing, original text, etc. I think it could be a very effective method as it presents an original text as the model for the students and it makes the students notice the gap between the native language and second language.
Asiye BAŞTÜRK
ReplyDelete1619949
Grammar is related to syntax and semantics at the same time and it is essential to be able to communicate while speaking or writing. It should be taught effectively because it leads the students to express herself/himself. It is something indispensible in a language acquired or learnt, since it shows itself in all other skills. However, it shouldn’t be like grammar translation method, because grammar can not be separated from other skills. The teacher has to integrate it with other skills. By focusing on the meanings of the structures, the teacher can avoid the students’ memorizing some strange formulization stuff. However, the students need to see the form in order to be able to use the structure, as well. Without nonsense drills and sentences which are not related to the real life, the teacher should help the students acquire the form in a more meaningful way.
Option5
ReplyDeleteI think grammar is not as important as other skills. It is only formality. For communication we do not need grammar actually. Native speakers of many languages do not know the grammar rules. Which is more important - grammar or communication? For spoken English, the simple answer is that, on the whole, communicating is more important than correct grammar. After all, the main goal of speaking English is to communicate ideas, not just to avoid making grammar mistakes. However, this certainly does not mean that grammatical accuracy is not important. In fact, whether or not a student can communicate sometimes depends on whether they get their grammar right.
No one learned to play guitar by reading a book. They had to play it. No one learned to speak a new language by reading, either; they had to speak it. Speaking English successfully does not require any grammar at all. Learners have been misled about the importance of grammar for speaking English. Grammar is important for writing, but for speaking, important words are more important.
In this article, the writers view grammar from a different point of view. According to Cullen, grammar is a liberating force in teaching language. What does he mean by liberating? I infer that he tries to explain grammar helps language learner to grasp the meaning of a given context. Grammar is not only the structures and tenses etc. in the sentence. However, it conveys more than structural knowledge to us. When we hear a sentence, which does not have any grammar at all, we cannot be sure what message or idea is being conveyed to us. For example, when we look at the example given by Cullen, ‘dog, eat, meat’ we cannot know what the speaker certainly means. The dog might have eaten the meat in the past, or he will eat the meat in the future. When we do not use grammar in such a sentence, the only way we can use will be the use of body language; gestures etc. however, none of them will give us the exact meaning, time of the sentence. So, we need grammar to know what the speaker or message actually tries to convey. That means, grammar is a liberating force for us to interpret the meaning of such a sentence. In this sentence, grammar liberates to make the notional meaning clear. There is another way grammar helps us to make the sentence clear; attitudinal force. When we think about the example in the article ‘argued and argues’, there is a difference between two sentences. The first one is related to past and we infer that it is not valid anymore. It has either been refuted or lost its fame. However, the second sentence gives us the message that the idea is still valid and accepted. Lastly, grammar helps language learners to be creative and develop their awareness by letting them to focus on forms. Research shows us that focus on form is actually beneficent for the learners because it helps them realize their lacking points and improve themselves. Grammar liberates the language learners to get the meaning out of the context by making use of the given structures. Then, we conclude that grammar is more than what people may think it to be.
ReplyDeleteAfter talking about what it means to be a liberating force, we need to talk about how we can succeed this. We can succeed teaching grammar as a liberating force when we incorporate 3 design features in the given contexts. The first one is learner choice. We should let the learners discover the language and apply the rules freely. The second feature is that we need to incorporate lexis into grammar. We should let the learners use their grammatical knowledge to grasp the meaning of the semantic features. Lastly, we need to give texts to the learners so that they will make comparisons between them. After working on a task, we should provide the learners with the correct form of the task and let them compare their products. Besides, we need to be process-oriented to use grammar as a liberating force. We can use grammaticization tasks, synthesis tasks, dictogloss and picture composition.