تبلیغات
amazing world and english grammar - گرامر

amazing world and english grammar

گرامر
گرامر
 

Grammar-Based Teaching: A Practitioner's Perspective

Betty Azar

Abstract

This article addresses the role of grammar in second language

instruction from the point of view of a longtime practitioner. It outlines

the basic methods and assumptions underlying Grammar-Based

Teaching (GBT), which the author sees as an effective, ever-evolving, and

widespread pedagogical practice. The article discusses the importance of

fundamental understandings of grammar concepts to effective language

use by native and non-native speakers alike and explains that GBT

engenders conceptual awareness of language structures even as it focuses

on morphological particulars. Distinctions are made between GBT and

other ways of including a grammar component in L2 curricula. With the

fading of the naturalist movement in language teaching, the author sees a

blending of GBT with Communicative Language Teaching and growing

accord among academics and practitioners in terms of the positive role

grammar teaching can play in balanced programs of second language

instruction.

Through the Eyes of a Practitioner

Do both. Those are the two words I write most often in margins when I read

academic articles about the teaching of grammar in second-language instruction.

Focus on fluency or accuracy? Do both, in proper balance given the students' needs

and goals. Have students work with grammar structures inductively or deductively?

Do both: you never know where any particular student's "Aha!" is going to come

from. Use authentic or adapted language? Students need both. Work with

sentence-level vs. connected-discourse material? Both can have good pedagogical

purpose and effect. Engage in open-ended communicative interaction or controlled

response exercises? Both are beneficial for students. Explicit instruction or

communicative exposure? Both. "[F]ocus on awareness rather than performance" in

teaching grammar? (Ellis, 2002, p. 29). My handwritten note in the margin: Do both.

These "do-both notes" I write to myself in margins reflect, I believe, a fundamental

difference between the perspectives of what I will call "academics" and

"practitioners." By academics, I mean those whose focus is on research and theory.

By practitioners, I mean teachers and materials writers. By academics, I mean those

who study and write about the teaching of language. By practitioners, I mean those

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 1

who actually teach language. The academic focuses on analysis: It is the nature of

research that one has to divide the subject of study into component parts so that they

can be measured and compared. The practitioner focuses on synthesis: The real

classroom is a complex arena where teachers tend towards eclecticism and

pragmatism in blending various practices and principles. Many in our field, of course,

are both academics and practitioners. But by my definition, I am not.

I say all this by way of introduction to explain that I am solely a practitioner and that

my goal in this article is to present a practitioner's view of the role of grammar in

second language instruction. I am not a researcher. I have no empirical data related

to the use of my materials. Since I published my first textbook in 1981, several

millions of English language students have used the grammar-based materials that I

have written. I do not know why. To my knowledge, no one has ever researched why

students and teachers use my textbooks in such large numbers and what the learner

outcomes are. I have considerable anecdotal input from users and have my theories,

of course, but, rather than research, my full-time energies and skills go into

materials development.

From my practitioner's perspective, I will outline in this article the basic methods and

assumptions underlying a widespread practice in our field: Grammar-Based Teaching

(GBT). In my reading of academic literature today, I perceive that many academics

now agree that those in the naturalist movement (most prominently Stephen

Krashen) were mistaken in advocating zero grammar. As just one example, I would

cite a recent Ellis article in TESOL Quarterly that states that there "is ample evidence

to demonstrate the teaching of grammar works" (2006, p. 102). A consensus in

favor of including grammar in L2 curricula does, at last, seem to have solidly

formed, and to me that means the academic community has become more in line

with the practitioner community vis-à-vis the teaching of grammar. Through the eyes

of many practitioners, grammar teaching is vibrantly alive and well (and has been

throughout our careers), ever-evolving in innovative ways, and an integral component

of effective second-language instruction for many students.

The Nature of Language and Concepts of Grammar

One important aspect of grammar teaching is that it helps learners discover the

nature of language, i.e., that language consists of predictable patterns that make

what we say, read, hear and write intelligible. Without grammar, we would have only

individual words or sounds, pictures, and body expressions to communicate meaning.

Grammar is the weaving that creates the fabric. One of the reasons I begin my

upper-level textbook, Understanding and Using English Grammar, with the entire

English verb tense/aspect system is to demonstrate that language has grand and

wonderful patterns and to convey that grammar is not just "rules." (Indeed, "rules" is

a word I, as a grammar-materials writer, use only in connection with spelling. I do

not see teaching grammar as teaching "rules.")

Along with an understanding of the nature of language, one of the principal benefits

of GBT is that it helps students gain an understanding of grammar concepts:

concepts such as subordination and coordination; concepts of expressing time

relationships through the use of verb forms; concepts of nouns and adjectives,

subjects and verbs, clauses and phrases. Students can understand grammar concepts

with simplified terminology, with a minimum of metalanguage and grammatical

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 2

analysis, and even without definition of key terms such as noun or verb. In my

grammar materials, for example, I use but do not define the terms noun and verb; I

just show students how these grammar components work in patterns of English to

convey meaning.

The conceptual nature of teaching grammar is a fundamental element of GBT;

however, it seems to me, it is often overlooked in the discussions of the values of

grammar teaching. One place it is not overlooked is in Mulroy's The War Against

Grammar (2003). Mulroy analyzes how the lack of grammar instruction in U.S.

school curricula during the naturalist movement heyday adversely affected

native-speaker students' ability to use English as best they could, principally, he

argues, because of students' lack of an understanding of what language is and lack of

concepts (not rules, but concepts) of grammar.

In my teaching experience, almost nothing is more difficult than trying to explain to a

student with no concept of grammar where to put a period or why a certain verb

form is needed. I am referring to some Generation 1.5 students I have encountered in

my university classrooms, students with four or eight or more years of schooling in

the United States (and a high school diploma) whose written English does not meet

the academic expectations of a university, though their speaking and listening could

be described as fluent and communicative (but with fossilized ungrammaticality).[1]

Many of these students have profound difficulties in producing university-level

academic writing. For them, accuracy did not "just happen," not even after many

years in the U.S. school system.

I observed that many of my Generation 1.5 students with no concept of grammar

also found it difficult to grasp principles of rhetoric. Students who cannot understand

how a sentence is structured also cannot readily see how one sentence relates to

another or how the sentences in a paragraph relate. So in addition to writing

problems, these students have difficulty with academic reading. In short, they have

difficulty seeing beneath the surface of the words to the complexity of the ideas

expressed in complex, interrelated language structures. Mulroy (2003) forwards

some excellent arguments for the teaching of grammar to anyone who uses

language—which is, of course, everyone.

Sentences always have and always will consist of clauses with subjects and

predicates and of words that fall into classes fairly well described as

verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions,

and interjections. Individuals who understand these concepts have a

distinct advantage over others where the use of language is involved—and

that means everywhere. (p. 118)

I agree with him.[2] Those who wish to use a language to the best of their ability, and

especially those who wish to use a language well in academic discourse, are helped by

fundamental understandings of its grammar, native speaker and non-native speaker

alike.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs. Focus on Form (FonF)

Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in academic circles since the late

1980s or early 1990s, when the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 3

has generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form (FonF), even though a

focus on grammar includes a great deal more than simply a focus on form. Form

and meaning are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar instruction.

Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways of introducing grammar

instruction into Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF blend grammar and communicative teaching, but approach the

integration of grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking, FonF

seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT curriculum. GBT seeks to

integrate CLT into a structural syllabus, usually in one class (often called a grammar

class) within a larger, varied curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners

today is whether (1) to teach grammar separately but integrated with CLT methods

and materials as one component out of many in a well-balanced program of second

language instruction, or (2) to integrate grammar into a content- and/or

task-focused approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively) or by a

predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have taught variations of it, most

notably in some basal series and in composition classes. For reactive teaching of

grammar in composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the students'

writing and use them for a grammar-teaching segment within the composition

syllabus. However, it was not difficult to notice that semester after semester students

made the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and effective to prepare

a grammar syllabus to integrate into the writing syllabus in a systematic way. I still

did reactive FonF teaching, but I found it more effective when combined with

proactive FonF teaching. For example, after the class had covered subject-verb

agreement in proactive FonF, I found reactive FonF teaching of that grammar point

easier and more efficient in that students just needed a quick reminder or recast.

I observed that students in my writing class who had experienced grammar

instruction had an advantage over those students who had not. Students with a good

grounding in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example, they were

trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really boring." Those without that

grounding in grammar needed a lot more teaching time in order to understand, just

as one example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives. Students with

numerous problems in structure usage but without grounding in grammar concepts

were, unfortunately and heartbreakingly, often unable to reach the level of academic

language skill they needed to continue their university studies. In sum, I observed that

FonF worked well for students with a good grounding in grammar. However, it was

not, in my experience, sufficient for students lacking basic concepts of how English

works, and especially not sufficient for those without an understanding of the nature

of language itself, as is the case with certain Generation 1.5 students.

My experience tells me that placing specific grammar structures within their larger

conceptual framework is more helpful to students than a random, piecemeal

approach to explicit grammar teaching. Let's continue with the example of participial

adjectives. If students already understand that -ing can signify the active meaning of

a transitive verb and that the -ed can signify a passive meaning (whether they know

the terminology or not), the difference between boring and bored becomes less

difficult for the teacher to demonstrate or the student to grasp than if the student

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 4

had no understanding of active vs. passive meanings.

Indeed, Williams and Evans (1998, p. 152) suggest that participial adjectives can be

"easily sorted out" in a FonF approach and imply that one explicit "straightforward

explanation" can suffice. However, from my experience, I would conjecture that

Williams and Evans would find participial adjectives "easily sorted out" only when

students already understand the passive meaning conveyed by –ed verbs, and even

then, in my experience, "one straightforward explanation" of participial adjectives is

not easily accomplished by a teacher or textbook and is rarely sufficient for students

who have confusion on this point. The success of a FonF lesson on participial

adjectives would depend, in my experience, on students' already having a good

foundation in the concept of the passive in English.

To me, the passive is a good example of how GBT allows students the necessary

exposure, experience and time to grasp a grammar concept, while FonF does not

allow the same learning opportunities. As Williams and Evans note, the passive is a

complex teaching task, not quickly nor easily done in a FonF approach. They

acknowledge that the passive "cannot be grasped by virtue of one straightforward

explanation" (1998, p. 152). When, as a teacher, I would finish a unit on the passive in

my GBT classes (perhaps five or six hours of teaching time), I felt the students had a

good grasp of the passive, one that would help them interpret what they read and

help them better say what they meant as their experience and facility in English grew

over time.

FonF certainly has a place in second language teaching. And so does GBT. The

variables are many as to which approach is best suited to the students: teachers need

to take into consideration the course purposes and the best use of available teaching

time. They need to consider the students' learning preferences, educational and

grammar backgrounds, skill level, and academic or work goals, among other things.

In intensive university-level ESL programs such as I taught in, setting aside time to

focus on grammar seemed to me effective and efficient, as well as a good support for

and supplement to the students' many other language learning experiences, both in

and out of class. Feedback from my students told me that they appreciated having

that time to look at how English works, to find answers to their many questions, and

to take risks in experimenting with newly understood structures through varied

practice in an accepting classroom environment.

Varieties of Grammar Materials

Not all grammar teaching or grammar-teaching materials are the same. I see wide

variations among them. For instance, GBT is not to be confused with Grammar

Translation. There is no translation nor rule-memorizing in GBT, instruction is not

conducted in the L1 (even though the L1 may be included in the teaching, depending

upon the situation), and GBT focuses on spoken as well as written language, and has

a listening and speaking component not generally found in Grammar Translation.

Other varieties in grammar materials (e.g., some grammar handbook-workbook

combinations) are limited fairly strictly to a focus on form, providing information

accompanied by a small sampling of manipulative exercises, with no particular

attention paid to the development of speaking, listening, writing, and reading skills.

Such texts provide explicit information but little practice and almost no

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 5

communicative methods are employed. Essentially, they function as sources of

explicit grammar information and their lessons could be excerpted or used as

supplements in a consciousness-raising FonF approach. Materials such as these do

not come under the umbrella of GBT as I define it.

By comparison, GBT materials go beyond the goals of providing grammar

information and raising awareness levels by proactively seeking to develop

communicative competence in all skill areas through widely varied practice

opportunities and the inclusion of communicative methods. GBT materials have

many subtle shades of difference, but generally they divide into two types.

There are those GBT materials that are complete courses organized around

areas of grammar; they are, in essence, basal series with a grammar syllabus.

These materials use a four-skill approach (i.e., include readings and

composition instruction in addition to listening and speaking practice) and, like

basal series, contain enough material, including ancillaries, that other texts are

presumably not required for a language course.

1.

Then there are GBT materials such as mine, which do not attempt to be

all-in-one texts. Instead, these materials focus on providing a grammar

component directed at skills development and are intended to support other

approaches and materials within a balanced program of second-language

instruction.

2.

A Description of Grammar-Based Teaching

The following is my description of GBT, with some of the methodological

considerations, assumptions, and practices of those of us who use this approach.

The Basic Approach

As its name implies, GBT uses grammar as the base, the starting point and

foundation, for the development of all language skills--speaking, listening, writing,

and reading. GBT provides information about English grammar accompanied by

numerous and varied practice opportunities.

Explicit Information about How English Works

GBT makes available explicit linguistic information about the structure of the English

language in order to help speed and otherwise facilitate the development of the

students' interlanguage. GBT does not "teach rules" but describes how English works.

Grammar is not taught as subject matter to be memorized; grammar is never taught

as an end in itself.

Practice

Practice ranges from simple manipulation of form to open communicative

interaction. GBT uses a wide variety of exercise types to encourage and accommodate

a variety of student language-learning strategies. The purposes of practice are

multifaceted, but all lead toward the goal of creating successful communication

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 6

experiences.

Blending Approaches

GBT blends a grammar syllabus and explicit grammar teaching with communicative

methods, using grammar as a springboard for interactive, communicative practice

opportunities.

Communicative Methods

GBT seeks to engage students in communicative practice that ideally provides ample

opportunity for creative use of target structures (which may or may not occur).

Communicative practice is usually centered on the students' own lives: their opinions,

experiences and real-life situations, including the fact that they are in a classroom

trying to learn English. GBT often uses the classroom as context, building language

practice around the people and objects and activities in the here-and-now classroom.

In GBT, communicative practice means that real people are communicating in real

time about real things in a real place for a real purpose.

Usage Ability Goals

The immediate goal is to help students develop an interlanguage sufficient to their

needs and purposes. Native-speaker proficiency may be a long-term goal, but is not

an immediate one. "Mastery" of structures is not expected, as though the students

were learning geometry formulas. A GBT approach does not presume to know when

any particular structure is internalized by any particular student.

Structure Awareness

GBT seeks to create awareness and understanding of English structures, i.e.,

awareness of the form, meaning, and appropriate use of structures. This awareness

is seen as one of the first steps many students rely upon in the process of creating

their interlanguage. Understanding how a structure works helps many students

formulate how to say what they mean and helps lead to successful communication

experiences, the building blocks of second-language acquisition.

Building Familiarity and Comfort Level

To assist the development of the students' interlanguage, GBT seeks to build

familiarity through repetition and variety in practice modes and promote the

students' comfort level in using their new language. Risk-taking is encouraged as

students gain confidence from the solid footing GBT provides.

Error Correction

In GBT, mistakes are viewed as opportunities for learning. Corrective feedback is a

natural and accepted part of a grammar-based class. Students are encouraged to

make their own corrections and at times to give corrective feedback to their

classmates during interactive activities. During independent communicative activities

among students, mistakes are largely ignored.

Grammar Concepts

GBT teaches grammar conceptually even as the focus is on particular morphology. In

other words, students are taught the concept of number, that is, how English

expresses singular and plural, or the concept of how verbs are used to express time.

Students are taught the concepts of subordination and coordination, even though that

terminology may not be used. Students are taught the concepts underlying such basic

grammar terms as noun, verb, sentence, and preposition—without ever defining

those terms. Parsing or student use of metalanguage to complete language-learning

tasks is very rare, done only for specific, pragmatic purposes in particular

circumstances.

By teaching grammar conceptually, GBT helps students gain a better conception of

language itself, that is, that language consists of intricate patterns that combine

through sound or writing to create meaning. Students come to understand that

language is not random and is not something that flows willy-nilly out of one's

mouth. It has structure and predictability—and without that structure and

predictability the sounds humans make and the scribbles they write would have little

depth of meaning.

Use of Cognitive Skills

GBT assumes that students naturally and beneficially utilize their cognitive skills in

pursuing second-language acquisition. Many students find it helpful to understand

how English works, and GBT supplies information and answers as well as lots of

practice in a comfortable environment that encourages cognitive exploration of both

the particulars of grammatical usage and the underlying organizational principles of

English.

Inductive vs. Deductive

Inductive and deductive approaches intermingle. Students are encouraged to figure

grammar patterns out for themselves, and are also given explicit information about

grammar. Both approaches are helpful for students.

Examples vs. Explanations

In optimal GBT, explanations of grammar are keyed to examples, not vice-versa. It

has been my observation that students learn from understanding what is happening

in examples of usage, not from knowing "rules." For example, in the Azar series, the

grammar charts are set up so that students look at examples first—then at an

explanation if necessary, not the other way around. Explanations are there on an "as

needed" basis only. Many students can discover a grammar pattern simply from

studying the vertically aligned examples on the left-hand side of a chart. The

explanation is not the important part of a chart; the examples are. The teacher's job

as well as the text's job is to clarify the grammar information students can discover

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 8

from examples. Simple form-and-meaning exercises are essentially examples for the

students to explore as their cognitive awareness of a structure increases.

Descriptive vs. Prescriptive

GBT provides descriptive information about how English works. It does not take a

prescriptive approach to language teaching, but it does give usage guidance,

especially as to register, e.g., informal vs. formal or spoken vs. written.

Terminology

GBT uses grammar terminology as a temporary tool to facilitate teacher-student

communication and as a later tool for those students who choose to use reference

texts such as dictionaries and grammar handbooks after leaving class study.

Students are very rarely asked to supply grammar terms in exercises—and only for

very well-defined purposes. Otherwise, they are not asked to use metalanguage, and

terminology is not taught as an end in itself. Terminology is seen as just a little help

along the way as students begin to grasp grammar concepts and understandings of

how English works.

Syllabus Construction

In GBT, the syllabus and sequence of presentation are principally based on:

the grammar information needs of second language learners

the pragmatics of organizing a complex subject for pedagogical purposes

frequency vs. nonfrequency of usage

simplicity vs. complexity of structure

usefulness to students' interlanguage

areas of difficulty for students

appropriate spiraling, adjusting depth and breadth according to level

Recycling and Spiraling

GBT gives repeated exposure to and practice with structures throughout a unit and a

series. Through spiraling, grammar concepts are explored more deeply and expanded

upon; tasks require more complex language use; students experience more variety in

the linguistic contexts and collocations associated with a structure.

Contexts

GBT uses both sentence-level and extended contexts. Even single-sentence items can

have clear contexts if properly written, though some single-sentence items are

directed purely at manipulation of form. Sentence-level exercises can help clarify

form and meaning, expose students to a variety of typical usages of the target

structure, and allow students to focus on grammar in uncomplicated contexts. GBT

also employs short contextualized passages. It is assumed students will have access

to lengthy extended discourse contexts from other sources.

Spontaneous Communicative Interaction

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 9

Much of GBT exercise content is selected for the purpose of sparking communicative

interactions among students and between students and teacher. Spontaneous

give-and-take generated by interesting and informative items is central, not

peripheral, to the intended use of GBT materials and is a prime language-teaching

opportunity teachers are expected to exploit.

Authentic vs. Adapted Language

The exercise content in most GBT materials is often based on authentic sources that

have been adapted for pedagogical purposes. Adapted material allows for a

streamlined focus in the classroom at times that authentic materials might lead to

digressions from the main teaching points or confusion about unfamiliar names,

references, and the like. GBT assumes students will have ample exposure to authentic

language materials from other sources. Students benefit from both authentic and

adapted materials; the use of one does not exclude the use of the other. Indeed, they

are mutually supportive within a curriculum.

Vocabulary

New vocabulary is not introduced at the same time a new structure is introduced.

Unfamiliar vocabulary can interfere with students' understanding the meaning of a

grammar form. After the structure is well understood and practiced, new vocabulary

is brought in, especially in contextualized exercises. When structures have common

collocations (such as the passive with get, e.g., get tired or get excited), students are

made aware of these collocations and practice them in typical contexts.

Grammar as Content

Those of us who engage in GBT often notice that students enjoy talking about

grammar; they become meaningfully engaged in the content. And as Ellis points out,

"For some learners at least, talking about grammar may be more meaningful than

talking about kinds of general topics often found in communicative language

courses" (2002, p. 165). Communicative interaction with grammar as the topic is

seen as a valuable language-learning experience in GBT, equally as valuable as talking

about any other academic subject that requires negotiation of meaning and cognitive

understanding of information and ideas.

Laying Foundations

As is clearly observable, significant second-language acquisition demands a relatively

lengthy period of time. Many GBT practitioners understand that they are laying the

foundation for future growth in language usage ability. Practitioners realize that

despite explicit teaching, learners may continue to make errors in structure usage for

a certain period during their interlanguage stages, but perceive that with appropriate

instruction those errors are less likely to become fossilized and more likely to be

replaced by accurate language use over time. Longitudinal GBT studies are needed. I

believe that only through longitudinal studies are we going to find unequivocal,

replicable, data-supported evidence for the overall effectiveness of GBT in terms of

learner outcomes.

Conclusion

Grammar teaching has held a dominant place in English language teaching for the

entire forty-some years I have been in the field, and during this time, it has developed

considerably and eclectically in its methods and materials. Certainly I need only to

look at the evolution of my own published materials as well as those of other

grammar materials developers to see a steady progression toward a blending of

methodologies within grammar syllabi, resulting in what I have termed

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT). Today, GBT is an effective, widespread and robust

pedagogical practice in the teaching of English as a second or foreign language.

The old-fashioned notion that teaching grammar is a matter of teaching "rules" has

given way to a recognition that grammar is, as Pennington says, "nothing more or

less than the organizing principles of a linguistic or (broader) communicational

system, without which, there is no system" (2002, p. 78). The teaching of grammar

means teaching how English works through helping students to understand grammar

concepts (i.e., the organizing principles of a linguistic communicational system) as

well as particulars. Pennington calls for the field to bring grammar "back from the

margins and into the heart of language and the language teaching profession where it

belongs" (2002, p. 78). However, I would maintain that for legions of teachers and

students, grammar never receded into the margins, even as CLT developed and

became a strong pedagogical force. Many practitioners embraced both GBT and

CLT, although the two became either/or's in a great deal of academic thought and

literature.

Fotos says of this dichotomy: "[I]t is time to take the position that a combination of

grammar instruction and the use of communicative activities provide an optimum

situation for effective L2 learning" (2005, p. 668). That simple statement addresses

what is actually happening in our field: large numbers of practitioners and academics

can currently be seen to be in accord that a focus on grammar plays a positive role in

second language instruction and that GBT and CLT are mutually supportive, not

mutually exclusive. To return to my starting point in this article, when it comes to

grammar teaching and communicative teaching, my answer is simply, "Do both."

Notes

[1] The following is a sample of writing from an immigrant student who arrived in

the United States at age eight, graduated from a U.S. high school, and was enrolled in

a U.S. college at the time this was written: "We never forgat that they are teen, they

are staring to live, they have a lot of confuse, they can't control there impulses and

they want to do what they see on tv or video games. Also if the court sente a kid in

adult presons will get worse not better, or this, I think the society or the court need to

build a new jail for the juveniles that have doing crimes and the court should treate

them as adulth but only in court." (Elaine M. McCollom, "'But I Was Born Here—I

Can't Be ESL!' Generation 1.5 Students in Today's Classroom." Unpublished

presentation at CATESOL 2006, San Francisco, CA.)

[2] I might note, however, that for second language students I do not choose to use

the terms predicate and interjection in my materials, but I do use all the other

traditional terms listed by Mulroy. Choice of terminology in relation to GBT is

TESL-EJ, Sept. 2007 Azar 11

separate topic beyond the scope of this article.

About the Author

Betty Azar is the author of The Azar Grammar Series,

Azar, B. and Hagen, S. (2006) Basic English grammar, 3e. White Plains, NY:

Pearson Longman,

Azar, B. (2003) Fundamentals of English grammar, 3e. White Plains, NY: Pearson

Longman, and

Azar, B. (1999). Understanding and using English grammar, 3e. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall Regents,

References

Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language

curriculum. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching

in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective.

TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83-107.

Fotos, S. (2005). Traditional and grammar translation methods for second language

teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and

learning (pp. 653-670). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mulroy, D. (2003). The war against grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook

Publishers, Inc.

Pennington, M. (2002). Grammar and communication: new directions in theory and

practice. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos, (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in

second language classrooms (pp. 77-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Williams, J. and Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C.

Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University


طبقه بندی: English Grammar، 
نوشته شده در تاریخ سه شنبه 22 آذر 1390 توسط arya ghaemi


جاوا اسكریپت

جاوا اسكریپت