Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of TESOL

Approaches to Teaching Grammar

Spring 2005

Week 3 - Answers

Thornbury. (1999) Chapter 1 - What is Grammar. pp. 1-13.

1. According to Thornbury, what is grammar and how does his definition differ from that of Ur?

According to Thornbury, grammar refers to the rules that a language as which enable a sentence be perceived as acceptable or not. This is a little but different than Ur's definition, which was focused mainly on structures. It also seems to me to be a rather circular definition. Grammar is the rules so that things can be perceived as grammatical or not. It is through these rules that this perception would work as well the creation of such utterances. So, for better for worse, for Thornbury grammar is really just about internalizing rules.

After giving us this basic definition, Thornbury then goes on to mention the things like elements structure like syntax and morphology and even manages to throw in a little bit about prescriptive grammar. I actually like what he says about prescriptive grammar, but that is something that we already talked about and will discuss a greater length in the future.

2. What do you think of Thornbury`s rule of thumb, `the more context the less grammar.` Explain.

I think the point that Thornbury is making here is extremely important and it's funny that he is making this point because he just on the page before advocated a rule-based system of grammar. When we're thinking about language as a communicative device the role that the rule-based grammatical system is going to have very tremendously depending on the way to the speaker is using the language. The basic determining factor will be, as correctly identified by Thornbury, context. I fully agree that the more context the less grammar (in the traditional sense) will be necessary. In fact using more grammar-embedded, formal language in highly contextualized situations is actually a very marked use of language. So this is really a truism. At the same time however we need to think about how this relates to a rule-based system of not only grammar but language itself.

If utterances are constructed using rules how then are we able to vary our use of language so dramatically depending on context. This is a major problem for a rule-based system. We would need to teach lots of different and often conflicting rules based on situational and linguistic context. Any rule that we teach our students has to be deeply related to the context (both situational and linguistic) which the speaker finds herself or himself. Otherwise there is no using language. Therefore, as I said last week just in passing, it seems that all speakers of a language have a huge number of different and possibly conflicting grammatical systems which they need to manage effectively in order to produce language effectively. This would be based on a grammatical systems approach to language and becomes extremely sticky and soon as we start to analyze actual language usage and contextual effects. There is a way out of this and we'll have to see if you can figure it out over time.

3. What are the two kinds of meaning Thornbury mentions and do we need both, more?

The two types of meaning which Thornbury mentions in this chapter are very basic and you may well have encountered them under different names in different publications you have read. The fact that they are so widely regarded in linguistics circles shows their extreme importance in being able to try to understand meaning in language. The first of these, which Thornbury refers to as representational meaning, basically shows that actual meaning which the words themselves in the utterance have. The interpersonal meaning, as indicated by Thornbury, refers to the intent that the speaker in creating the utterance. Studies of pragmatics indicate that most utterances people create have both kinds of meaning and it is a good user of language which is able to interpret understand both types.

Here is a simple example which will hopefully illustrate the difference for you.

(1) Armadillos have been known to attack unguarded sandwiches.

This utterance clearly has two meanings.The representational meaning is simply what the words taken together will mean through a direct correlation to the world. So, we know what armadillos are, we are familiar with the verb phrase `have been known`, we know what the verb attack means, and finally we know what `unguarded sandwiches` are. Based on all this lexical knowledge is well as grammatical knowledge we can come up with the basic meaning for this utterance which reflects its representational meaning in the world. Now, the second mean we need to think about maybe why somebody would actually say this. The answer to this question is in the interpersonal meaning. Knowing what we know about the world (that armadillos are wild animals and that wild animals are often hungry) a listener would probably take this is a warning. We can say the same thing very simply showing very directly the interpersonal meaning, `Guard your food.`

For Thornbury as for all pragmatists, people who focus their studies on meaning in actual language use, the distinction is of paramount importance. In many utterances the two types of meaning will be the same, but anothers the two meanings will be quite different in an essential part of language, and maybe grammar depending on our view of grammar, is being able to figure out these differences and particularly the speaker`s intent.

4. How are functions related to grammar and what are they?

In looking at functions we are expanding on the idea of interpersonal meaning. The function is basically the purpose that the speaker has in honoring something. The sounds very simple but rapidly becomes quite complex vicinity relies that the relationship between forms (the actual language used) and the function (the particular purpose for the utterance) is not one to one. Therefore, there are many different forms which to fill the same function and for one form there are many possible functions. Again a simple set of examples should make it easier to understand.

(2)   Out.

      Get out.

      Piss off

      Please leave.

      Can`t you see I`m busy?

      I would like you to go now.

      I`m busy right now.

      It would be great if you were to go.

      I`m on the phone.

      Nature`s calling.

      Etc....

All of these forms used above have the same function. All of them are trying to get the listener to try to go away from the speaker, yet they employ very different forms in order to do that obviously based on context. In looking at grammar, it is very important that the teacher also looks at functions, because the two of them are quite closely tied together through context.

5. What is a grammar syllabus and what are some of the major concerns which needs to be considered in designing a grammar syllabus?

A grammar syllabus is probably the type of syllabus that you have been using all along. Most of the textbook materials designed are based on grammar syllabi or at least have a grammar syllabus interwoven with some other type of design feature. The overall prevalence of grammar based syllabi reflects either the perception of the tremendous importance of grammar in language learning or the simple fact that teachers find grammar teaching much easier than actual language use. In any case, we have already established that we can't simply forget about grammar, so we need to have some sort of grammar focus in our syllabus. That is we somehow need to plan for how, wind, and why we're going to be teaching grammar. All these beliefs need to be reflected in our grammar syllabus. In order to do this then we need to make sure that we understand our beliefs and have a good reason for holding them.

Our grammar syllabus is going to be based on certain beliefs. First of these is actual usefulness. We want to teach grammar points which are first necessary for our students to know. For this reason people often teach the present tense before they teach the past tense. It seems more useful, I guess. Along with usefulness is also the idea of simplicity and learnability. We need to teach things that we can our students are ready or capable of learning. In doing so we need of course make a distinction between input and output, as mentioned by Thornbury. It's important to understand just because we talk something (provided input) doesn't mean that students will instantly be able to convert this into actual language use (output). Sometimes it takes a lot of time for input to turn into output in the time required varies tremendously from student to student. Another important point which Thornbury that mentioned very well for which we have already mentioned is teachability related to complexity. Most structural points in language are far too complex to be dealt with in one sitting. We therefore need to see how we're going to divide up and schedule (and revisit) for elements of the same grammatical structure or grammatical point.

One thing that we need to remember that grammar syllabi, or any syllabus for that matter, is that it is only a basic guideline for us and the students. The outcome of the syllabus is not necessarily clear from the design. This can be very frustrating for teachers, particularly if you are focusing on actual language use, in some way, shape, or form feel, we should be.

6. What is Thornbury`s view of language rules and how does his view contrast from your own?

As I have already mentioned I am not a great believer in language rules. Yes, I think there are some rules related to language and language use, but I think they're very much in the periphery. Rules are not the basic system under which language functions in my opinion. Thornbury has a different opinion. He believes in the primacy of rules, but he also cautions teachers about how and when to use grammar rules. We need to be careful about how we throw these things around because, as he points out, language use is a very tricky thing. There is no black and white in language. Contextual effects predominate the use of language and this means the actual forms which people will use to achieve particular functions. Based on this teaching students certain rules might actually help them learn a bit faster, but we need to make sure that we do not teach rules as facts. That is need to be very careful about being overly deterministic about our teaching of rules. Prescriptive values to language are necessary and important, but we also need to get our students understand is that language is highly flexible. Any use of rules and needs to reflect this overall flexibility as well as the transitory nature of linguistic structure. Rules, therefore, can aid in efficiency and efficacy related to the teaching of grammar related aspects of language, they can also have long-term negative effects if wielded improperly and irresponsibly.

General Comments on Thornbury Chapter 1: What is grammar?

Texts, sentences, words, sounds

          In the first part of this chapter, Thornbury goes to great lengths to point out that grammar is something that occurs on a wide variety of levels, as the name of the section implies. He demonstrates this by playing with language a bit at a few of these levels and then takes a big retreat by claiming that since most grammar books and language teaching revolve around grammar at the sentence level, then that is what he is going to focus on. It is a shame he does this because it seems that he starts off by going in the right direction and then just backs off.

          In his sentence-level evaluation, he encourages us to think about grammar as a kind of horizontal grid which is composed of sets of slots. These slots can be filled with certain types (classes) of words and some variation is permitted, but this variation is very much a language specific affair. It looks disturbingly similar to pattern drills.

Grammar and meaning

          In this section he does a good job of getting us to think about the inherent and irrefutable connection between grammar and meaning. This is not a new claim. In the field everyone says it, but few actually do anything with it. Very few grammar courses or programs are designed around the meaning first and the grammar second. Still, he makes some good points in this section.

His first good point is, ̋Grammar is a process of making a speaker`s or writer`s meaning clear where contextual information is lacking or different̋ (Thornbury, 1999: 4). He goes on specify this point by claiming, ̋Grammar is a tool for making meaning̋ (ibid). He then goes on to address the issues of two different types of meaning; representation and interpersonal.

Representational meaning is meaning that address the general state of the world. Think of language as nothing more (or less) than a tiny encapsulation of the world inside your brain. Knowing about the world, to a certain degree, would seem to be a prerequisite for language use. We acquire this knowledge through language in the form of representational meaning and interact with the world conceptually through this same medium.

Forcing the world (or the people or things in it) to do what we want would be part of interpersonal meaning. This is the meaning we use in dealing directly with cognizant beings, for the most part other humans, but sometimes dogs and other higher animals.

Grammar and function

          This section goes over the 30 year old realization that forms (specific chunks of language) can be linked to specific functions (the goals or intentions of a speaking endeavor). This is old hat, just as the realization that the relationship between forms and functions is by no means one-to-one. Still, the basis of this relationship was used to develop the communicative approach and can be useful when considering the teaching of grammar. The idea is teach your students the grammar (structures/forms) they will need to complete certain functional demands.

Spoken grammar and written grammar

          Yes, they are different. Surprise!! Speaking is primary. So, should we forget about writing is relations to grammar? What do you think? Grammar is often taught more in relation to writing than speaking. There must be a reason for this. The reason is that it helps to make our learners maximally comprehensible, but also rather contrived and unnatural sounding.

Grammar syllabuses

          The syllabus is the core of any teaching endeavor. When teaching grammar, like anything else, we need to first come up with a syllabus which will outline, at least, the order that we will try to tackle certain grammatical features. How these things are ordered is often determined haphazardly or according to the teacher`s personal preferences. Thornbury suggests that we order our grammar points according to several considerations:

Complexity

Learnability

Teachability

After this or before this as the case may be, this teacher needs to come up with a way in the syllabus to integrate the grammar with some other aspects of language to fuel the development of the students` communicative competence.

Grammar rules

          This discussion basically goes over the different ways of dealing with grammar in the class; that is, the teacher`s attitude toward how grammar works and what is right or wrong. Are there really grammar rules? We will find out.

Lewis (1997) Chapter 2 - Understanding Lexis. pp. 17-43.

1. What does it mean when we say that lexis (language) is arbitrary and what does this have to do with the question of language/grammar learning?

The point that Lewis tries to make about arbitrariness is one of paramount importance and can not the underestimated. Linguists since the beginning of structuralism (de Saussure) have been stressing the necessary arbitrary nature of language. This means that there is no reason why a language employs specific forms to indicate entities, states, or conditions. Likewise, the grammatical means a language use is to further encode messages is highly arbitrary nature. There is no reason why English uses a specific type of morphological marketing to indicate past tense. It is arbitrary. Arbitrariness was used as a way of expanding on the scientific nature of language itself. At the same time, however, in the structuralist and later on in the generative models the basic unit of language was the word. Therefore, arbitrariness worked on different levels, the word level and the grammatical or syntactic level. What Lewis is telling us now is that arbitrariness has a wider role than just that.

All forms of language are essentially arbitrary. What we say is not the result of some systematic process of producing utterances per se, but rather is a result of reproducing what was already heard. This view is expounded in what have come to be known as usage based models of language. The basic idea is that language forms are learned in context. This includes not only words, but following what we know of the lexical approach, multiword items. These multiword items can be anything from a phrase up to a sentence and as a result contain grammar. In analyzing language then it is actually hard to come up with wholly systematic explanations of language forms. Many things occur in language simply because they occur/people say them. This is the essence of arbitrariness. Taking the lexical approach as a basic view of language arbitrariness seems to be pervasive at all levels. Following this there are many repercussions for teaching.

The first major repercussion for teaching is that the input teachers provide their students is of immense importance. In effect, the input you give your students will become their output under certain conditions. The basic idea is the people use of what other people use in this relates to forms. This means is well that explanations, no matter how wonderful we think they are, have limited effect. The effect as well can also be damaging if we try to make explanations that are too prescriptive or systems/rule-based.

2. According to Lewis, not all words are equal. What are some of the differences he cites among words?

Aside from multi-word units which Lewis believes can be seen as words due to the fact that they tolerate no alteration what-so-ever without meaning changes, Lewis argues that all words are not the same. Some words have much more general meaning than other words. This difference correlates to superordinate and subordinate distinctions as are said to be present in a hierarchical lexicon. In relation this superordinate words have less specific meaning and as a result are able to be used in more contexts. They, therefore, are more frequent and students will probably be exposed to them first. You may also notice from the examples that Lewis gives on p. 23 the presence of Zipf`s law. Zipf`s law (Zipf, 1948), which is more of a general observation than law, claims that the more frequently a word is used the shorter the word will be. Thus, there is a correlation between word length and complexity and frequency of use. Lewis also identifies a special subclass of words called common words. Common words are basically words that are extremely polysemous. It should be acknowledged that all words are polysemous to certain extent, but common words are polysemous to a high degree. Once more, many `general` words that are polysemous are polysemous within a basic semantic range. Common words are polysemous in different semantic ranges. The exact meaning of the word is made clear only by the context in which it is in. Finally, the last type of word that Lewis addresses here is the idea of de-lexicalised words. De--lexicalised words are words that have so many different types of uses that they really have no semantic meaning of their own. Lewis says that the structures in which is words are embedded tend to have more idiomatic type uses. This is because the words themselves don't seem to have very much meaning. Therefore any meaning which is generated in relation to these words does not come from the words themselves, which is basically the definition of an idiom. From all this we see that even words themselves, seemingly the simplest type of linguistic unit, are quite diverse and need to be treated quite differently for optimal learning.

3. What are collocations and how do they work?

Collocation is a highly common phenomenon in language wherein certain words have a strong tendency to pattern or associate with a certain other words and in doing so form a kind of bond. In this phenomenon all words are seen as having some relation to collocation. That is, all words show collocational patterns but in different ways. The simplest of these ways is in what is termed `collocational range.` Some words have a wide collocational range meaning that they can collocate or tend to co-occur with a wide range of many other words. An example of a word with a very wide collocational range would be nice. Nice collocates or is able to co-occur with a virtually unlimited number of different words as in the examples below.

(1) Joan was wearing nice dress.

(2) Bob is always such a nice person.

(3) Have you seen my nice sweater today.

(4) The traffic was so nice today.

(5) That was a really nice storm.

An interesting peripheral phenomenon we see in looking at the nice examples below is that nice does not seem to have real specific type of meaning. The nice in nice storm is going to contain different aspects of meaning that the nice in nice dress. Other words, however, tend to have a very narrow collocational range and may be able to collocate or co-occur with only one or two other words. An example would be bloodshot. Unless someone is a doctor or nurse or involved deeply in the medical profession the only real collocate for bloodshot is eye(s). All words in a language can then, be placed in a continuum based on their collocational range. Words that are like nice and seem to be able to collocate more or less freely are located at the one end of the continuum while words like bloodshot or addled (eggs, brain) are located at the other end. Most words are located somewhere in the middle but lean toward one side or the other of the continuum.

In general we can associate 4 different variables which sem to have an effect on collocation. In doing so it should be acknowledged that we are following the highly generalized view of collocation offered in Singleton (2000). It should here be noted that many other researchers into the area divide what Singleton (2000) refers to as collocation into several different types of lexical groups with different names. We are following Singleton`s generalized view here because it is extremely hard to justify the different groups except for a few core members (All categories are fuzzy and collocational categories are often fuzzier than others.) and in the end they are all prey to the same basic linguistic/cognitive forces and can easily be described within and attributed to the same system once we take the different variables below into account.

Size

Collocations vary in size from the extremely common two or three to up to seven or more units in what are often termed `chunks.` Linguists working in the field often or even generally refer to units of four or more as chunks, but really they are just collocations of a different order. Here are few examples or collocations of different sizes.

(6) drastic measures, black coffee, lined paper, finger splint, blue sky

(7) down and out, black and blue, eggs over easy, war is hell, spill the beans

(8) raining cats and dogs, as I was saying, to be perfectly honest

(9) you know what I mean, to put things another way

(10) a stitch in time saves nine, every cloud has a silver lining

(11) to be or not to be - that is the question, the shoe is on the other foot

As we can see from the list above, it is much easier to think of two and three part collocations than 4, 5, 6, or 7 part collocations. Two or three part collocations are not only more prevalent but are also much more diverse in their behavior (functions). They are simply much more productive. As we move up in the size variable we begin to see that the functions and type of collocations begins to become much more limited. In the higher range we seem to have collocations that are either idioms (the grass is greener on the other side) or are discourse markers (allow me to explain), but even these discourse markers tend to disappear at the 5 or 6 range.. At the very highest range of size we tend to have only quotes or idiomatic expressions.

Fixedness

The variable of fixedness has been widely studied by linguists dealing with chunks. Fixedness really only becomes an issue in the collocations above the two-part size. The simple idea is again, collocations ana be placed in some sort of continuum based on fixedness in that some collocations, while undoubtably units, are quite adaptable while others are fixed in their form. Less fixed collocations may be adapted through insertion of another unit in between parts (and here we are intruding a bit on the distance variable`s territory) or they might be altered by changing their order or having parts replaced with other parts. Here are some examples using some of the collocations presented above in examples (6)-(11).

(12) *Well, you know what they say, a stitch in ten saves time.

(13) Unbelievably, John was down and in.

(14) There are after all many other ways to put it.

(15) While Chomsky (2002) originally claimed that in the 9/11 bombings the US was prey to a long awaited shoe is on the other foot phenomenon, he later claimed that it was more a case of the shoe being taken off the foot and placed in a steel tipped boot.

In (12) above we see an example of an idiom which seems to be very fixed. We cannot replace any of the component parts or change the order of the components. Not all idioms, however, are so fixed as is demonstrated by (13) when one of the component parts can be changed to forma unique use and meaning. In such cases it should be clear that there is a connection between the new derived form and the original collocational unit that created it. That is the meaning of down and in is clearly based on the meaning of the standardized down and out. IN (14) we see that it is possible both to shift the order of the component parts (in constituents) and even alter one of the forms (another -> other). Lastly in (15) we se a rather large alteration of the original collocational chunk by extending it with a different component. Based o this we can see that collocations do indeed behave differently as regards their degree of fixedness.

Distance

The amount of distance between the component parts off collocations has been tentatively demonstrated in some of the examples presented above. Here, then, we will focus out attention on two-part collocations and how distant they might be in certain utterances. We focus on them because they not only excellently show how distance operates a a variable but also demonstrate a point we will; return to later in discussions of grammatical systems and collocation.

(16) John loves his coffee black.

(17) John loves black coffee.

(18) John loves his coffee exceedingly black.

(19) When John drinks coffee, he always takes it black.

(20) For John the only way to drink coffee is black.

(21) Black is the only way for John to ever consider drinking coffee.

(22) In John`s world drinking coffee only ensues when it is black.

In the above examples we have not only played around with the distance factor as can be shown in a straightforward way in examples (18), (20), (21) and (22), but have also tried to show that the collocation here can operate in different directions. That is, they can occur either anaphorically or cataphorically. Interesting to note is that pronouns like it also sem to be involved in the relations between these two parts and a certain degree of distance can also be shown between the pronoun which is undoubtably carrying features of the NP coffee and the collocational modifier black. This is important because we see that collocations seem to be able to engage in similar behavior as other grammatical units.

Usage/Frequency

The last variable that we are going to look at is usage/frequency. There seems to be a correlation between the frequency of collocational unit and its range as well as size, fixedness, and distance. The ability to make these correlations underscores the claim that all collocations, no matter what their surface differences may appear to be, are part of the same system.

In general, lexical units that have a frequent pattern of usage, like nice, will not only have a much wider collocational range but they will tend to engage in smaller collocational units, be less fixed and show more possible distance. Larger collocational units, as well, will tend to be more fixed than smaller ones. More observations can be ,made but te main point to ben made is that these variables seem to definitely affect each other, indicating one large system which may actually ultimately be able to be expanded beyond the scope of words alone.

The idea here is that collocations are part of a system which certainly includes all words and may include all linguistic units. Regardless of the possible scope of a system of associations resulting in what has been termed collocation by Singleton (2000), it is clear that such phenomenon is psychologically real and cannot be avoided either by linguists or by language teachers/learners. Learning collocational systems is an essential step in learning both the spoken and written systems of the target language. The basic idea is that collocations are not only a real system but an important one in language. In the simplest view, collocations are what allow native speakers and proficient users of a language to speak the language more fluently and accurately. Because of collocational connections native speakers of a language are able to plan and produce language in a much more efficient way. In this view, native speakers do not always produce their language piece by piece, free from other outside lexical or any other effects. Collocational connections between words allow people to create language in chunks. For example, if I wan to describe a rom that is very dark as soon as I think of the word pitch in this context the word black (or visa-versa) is automatically going to pop up in my head as a result of he strong collocational link between the words pitch and black. Language learners may be able to survive without collocational links, but there are going to be some serious and possibly insurmountable limitations on their productive capabilities and the naturalness of the language they produce.

Taking this further, some linguists and researchers have claimed that collocation is not just a simple phenomenon but the forces that apply to create collocation are the same forces that apply to create grammar. Researchers like Michael Lewis claim that grammar and grammatical knowledge is housed in the lexicon via collocational links and the grammar contained in larger chunks. Thus, exposure to large amounts of authentic and unanalyzed language (which would also necessarily include collocation) is the best and maybe even the only way to learn language.

4. How are expressions created and modified?

Expressions are like collocations except they are longer and have somewhat different functions. While collocations are simply links or relationships between two lexical items expressions come in different fundamental types. Many of these types vary based not only on their function but on the degree of the fixedness. The most general of these types of expressions would be frames. These frames generally are representations of prototypical structures which are used for specific functional purposes. Within the frame there are the actual grammatical elements (the function words and their arrangement) and what are called slots. The slots are occupied by content words and different content words can be inserted into these different slots depending on what meaning the speaker is trying to intend. As we mentioned last week this is the basic idea underlying Fillmore's construction grammar. Thus frames are not necessarily fixed. The process of linguistic creativity is being able to change around these frames, principally by inserting different content words into slots. One specific type of frame would be a sentence head, which is often used at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a specific idea. These often tend to be more fixed. Idioms are one specific type of frame and are different from regular frames in that the meaning of the overall expressions is not always discernible precisely from the semantic meaning of the individual words. As with frames, idioms exist in degrees of varied fixedness. The idioms immediately spring to mind are one switch tend to be quite fixed, but idiomatic, or to use the terms of Lakoff and Johnson (1994) or metaphoric expressions are prevalent in language, particularly in a less fixed form.

5. What is the importance of lexical awareness?

The basic idea underscoring lexical awareness, as with general linguistic awareness, is that such awareness is necessary for actual language learning. If people are not aware of the presence of certain phenomenon they will simply not know it's there. Thus, much of what a teacher should be doing regarding lexis (and grammar depending on how taken in you are by the entire lexical approach) is trying to make the student aware of some of these different multiword units or chunks. One way of doing this is through listing as a corresponding form of input related to the actual input you give. Obviously any authentic input is going to necessarily include all of these different lexical types, but in order to make our students aware we need to somehow draw their attention to these things. An interesting phenomenon I have observed in my own Korean students is that while they seem to be aware of things like fixed expressions in the form of both sentence heads and idiomatic/metaphorical expressions they often make mistakes in the form that they employ. This is probably because they are not actually using these as fixed expressions, but rather are constructing them more by word and in doing so trying to apply rules of grammar which don't necessarily apply to these or any other structures really. Thus, we need our students to see that essential elements in these expressions, and collocations but we don't necessarily need them to a make a traditionally based grammatical analysis, as this might trigger possible errors in the future, and also fossilizations.