Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:42:08.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pedagogical Descriptions of Language: Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Diane Larsen-Freeman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For hundreds of years, language educators have alternated between favoring language teaching approaches which focus on language form and those which emphasize language use or which focus on the message (Celce-Murcia 1979). For the greater part of this past decade, it has been the latter which have been fashionable. As a consequence, language teachers have been discouraged from teaching grammar. In fact, during the 1980s explicit grammer instruction has even been proscribed by certain methodologists (Krashen 1982; 1985, Krashen and Terrell 1983, Prabhu 1987). Although this position has been repeatedly assailed (Higgs and Clifford 1982, Long 1983; 1988, Harley and Swain 1984, Pienemann 1984), the proscribers persist. Only as recently as June 1988, Van Patten concluded that “…research evidence to date does not suggest that a focus on form is either necessary or beneficial to early stage learners’ (1988:243). Undeniable is the fact that research has pointed to a difference in learner performance (e.g., type of errors made) depending on whether there is a focus on form or not (Pica 1983, Spada 1987); still to be resolved, and surely an issue which will motivate much research in the next decade, is the extent to which a focus on form versus on a focus on message affects the rate of target language attainment. Such research will hopefully be conducted in a way which disambiguates “focus on form” (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1988, Beretta 1989).

Type
Language Pedagogy
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 10 , March 1989 , pp. 187 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beretta, A. 1989. Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore project. TESOL quarterly. 23.2.283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Celcia-Murcia, M. 1979. Language teaching methods from the ancient Greeks to Gattegno. Paper presented to the CATESOL Convention. Los Angeles, April.Google Scholar
Celcia-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D.. 1983. The grammar book: An ESLIEFL teacher's course.Rowley M.A: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Corder, S.P. 1988. Chapter 13 of Introducing applied linguistics [1973]. in Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. (eds.) Grammar and second language teaching. New York: Newbury House. 123–145.Google Scholar
Eskey, D. 1983. Meanwhile back in the real world…: Accuracy and fluency in second language teaching. TESOL quarterly. 17.2.315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. et al. , Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harley, B. and Swain, M. 1984. The interlanguage of immersion student and its implications for second language teaching. In Davies, A., Criper, C., and Howatt, A. (eds.) Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 291–311.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. and Clifford, R. 1982. The push for communication. In Higgs, T. (ed.) Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. 57–79.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1985. If at first you do succeed. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds.) Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 345–353.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. and Terrell., T. 1983. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: The Alemany Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1985. The three dimensions of language. Paper presented at the Fifth National LEND Conference in Rimini, Italy, November. [Published in the proceedings, Lingua e nova didatica series, 1986. Milan: Edizioni Scholastiche Bruno Mondadori.]Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1987a. Micro and macro decision-making in language teaching. Plenary address delivered at the Seventh Annual Conference on Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Teaching. University of South Florida, Tampa, June.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1987b. Developing strategies for teaching grammar. Plenary address delivered at the Conference on Grammar Teaching/Grammar Learning. Georgia State University, Atlanta, December.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1988. Creating techniques for addressing the three dimensions of language. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual TESOL Conference. Chicago, March.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1989. Designing grammar activities where language and learning intersect. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual TESOL Conference. San Antonio, March.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Celce-Murcia, M.. 1985 Defining the challenge: An additional choice in course design. Paper presented at the 19th Annual TESOL Conference, New York, March.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M..1990. Research priorities in foreign language learning and teaching. Paper prepared for the National Foreign Language Center, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. Forthcoming. An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. and White, L.. 1987. The influence of linguistic theories on language acquisition research: Description and explanation. Language learning. 37. 4. 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1983. Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL quarterly. 17. 3. 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1988. Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (ed.) Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. New York: Newbury House. 115–141.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1983. Studies in relational grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pica, T. 1983. Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions exposure. Language learning. 33. 4. 465–497.Google Scholar
pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in second language acquisition. 6. 2. 186–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rea Dickins, P. and Woods, E.. 1988. Some criteria for the development of communicative grammar tasks. TESOL quarterly. 22. 4. 623–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddle, E. 1986. The meaning and discourse function of the past tense in English. TESOL quarterly. 20. 2. 267–286.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith., M. 1985. Consciousness raising and universal grammar. Applied lingustics. 6. 3. 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. Consciousness raising and the second language learner. Applied linguistics. 2. 2. 159–168.Google Scholar
Spada, N. 1987. Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language teaching. Applied linguistics. 8. 2. 137–161.Google Scholar
Van Patten, B. 1988. How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in teaching. Language learning. 38. 2. 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1988. Grammar and nonsense and learning. In Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. (eds.) Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings. New York: Newbury House. 146–155.Google Scholar