Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
Approaches to Teaching Grammar
Fall 2006
Week 7 - Answers
Thornbury (1999) Chapter 5 - How to teach grammar from texts. pp. 69-90.
1. What are the main advantages of using texts in the teaching of grammar?
The main advantage of using texts in the teaching of grammar is that texts provide context. We've been saying all along in this course over and over again that grammar, or vocabulary, can only be based on interpreted and understood the context in which it is surrounded or embedded. Decontextualized grammatical structures are virtually meaningless. Texts provide context. The longer the text the more context is available but at some point we need to decide on how much context is enough. And it should be considered that all texts provide or react to the same degree of context. Some texts provide co-text without providing very much situational context and such texts are obviously less useful. In addition we need to make a distinction between written and spoken texts.
While we have already gone over some of the major structural differences between written and spoken texts we have not yet gone over some of their differences related to authenticity and teaching. It must first be acknowledged that virtually all spoken texts you have access to via outside sources are not going to be completely authentic and their relative degree of authenticity will vary greatly. In addition, spoken texts add the extra burden of precessing restrictions. Students have to understand them and quickly. It is for this reason (processing) that speaking varies from reading both in structure and form. Be aware of this. Written texts are particularly useful for elements of grammar learning because they give the learner time to process the language and figure out the grammar as well as the co-text. We can assume that there is more potential noticing and processing going on in written texts than in spoken forms of the language.
Some other advantages of using texts in the teaching of grammar is that they often contain content (beware though that not all texts are as content rich as others. There is such a thing as vacuous texts). Simply looking at language and focusing on language all the time is boring. Language is a boring topic for most people. By using texts we are able to introduce all different areas of content which students will hopefully be interested in. The texts may also show students aspects of the culture of the target language to a certain extent because texts are always embedded with culture whether overtly or covertly.
2. What are the two main types of context that we need to look at in relation to using texts in teaching grammar?
There are two maintain types of context to look at in relation to using texts in teaching grammar. Really, these contexts are very general and exist everywhere. They are situational context and linguistic context (co-text). The situational context basically refers to what is going on in the surroundings/environment. This could be, for example, who the audience is, where the conversation is going on, the subject matter of the conversation, why is the speaker/writer saying/writing this. These are just a few of the different areas that relate to situational context. It is a fact that the situation that a speaker or writer finds himself in has a large determination on the type of language that they're going to use and this includes grammatical forms. This, of course relates, to the particular forms of grammar employed because native speakers always have a wide range of varying possibilities to choose from. Linguistic context or co-text is based on the surrounding linguistic data. This includes what was just said or written and what will be said or written in the near future.
The grammar of what we're trying to put together/write now must fit both of these concerns. This might come as a surprise to some of you, at least in relation to what will come in the future. It is, however, true that speakers, in putting together language, must plan ahead and that whenever somebody is using language their brain is always one step ahead (it actually needs to be ahead) of what is actually coming out of their mouths. Thinking about this in relation to deep structure (conceptual structure) and surface structure (the forms themselves and their configuration), it is the linguistic context which determines to a large extent what the surface structure is going to be in relation to the surrounding surface structures. Everything must fit together neatly. In this way we can see that grammar is used to try to fit the language to context, both situational and linguistic.
3. What are some of the sources of texts?
Thornbury mentions four main sources of texts we can use in the classroom.
Contrived texts (Coursebooks)
Most of the texts that we find in language study materials are in fact contrived. They might be contrived in many different ways, but if a text is written with a particular group of learners in mind then it is contrived. Taking an authentic text and altering it in any way turns it into a contrived text. Oh yes. Based on this definition, then pretty much everything we find in language books is contrived unless specifically marked for its origin. You will notice from my use of terms here that all contrived texts, whether intended to be delivered in written or spoken form, are written.
This does not mean that all contrived texts are the same. Contrived tests vary greatly in their relative degree of naturalness, or the degree to which they mimic actual language usage patterns. And it is natural language usage patterns which we are trying to find while limiting the text in some way to make it more amenable to our students.
Authentic texts (The world at large)
Authentic texts are texts that are created (spoken/written) for natural purposes for a native speaker audience. They can be created by native or non-native speakers/writers, but the purpose and, in the case of the latter, the degree of accuracy are the important factors.
The teacher
The teacher can be a great source of texts for the students. She is great because only she really knows the students personally. She has a personal connection with the students and will hopefully know what the students like to hear/read about. Likewise, the students are hopefully a bit interested in the teacher and what she does and thinks. Thus, teacher-generated texts might be more motivating for students and as a result might be more carefully processed.
The students
Of course, student -generated texts are even more wonderful for all the same reasons as we love teacher-generated texts with a few wonderful extras. First, if the student is talking about something then it is generally something they are interested in and therefore other students probably will be as well. Also, student-generated texts provide the teacher access to student progress as well as affording her an opportunity to provide some essential feedback.
4. How can we best deal with authentic texts?
A text can come from anywhere. Anything can be a text. A text does not have to be something which is taken from a book or something that the teacher has written down. A text can be either spoken or written and they can come from the teachers, from the students, from an outside source, anywhere. Any piece of language is, in effect, a text. Therefore, texts are everywhere and we should really have no trouble finding them or getting our students to create them. (Do not confuse the words text and textbook. The former, as described above, is really does any piece of language while the latter includes a book which is particularly written to teach a certain course of material.)
Teachers need to try to be able to figure out how to use all the texts that are available to them. We have a tendency to really only use what's written or what we find in the form of printed out dialog as texts. In reality texts are much more and can be used much more. When looking at what is commonly known as texts we can make a distinction between authentic texts and contrived texts. Authentic texts are, specifically, texts which have not been written for the purposes of language study. They were written for some other, authentic, communicative purpose. Contrived texts, on the other hand, are just that; contrived. They have been written for the purposes of language study. Somebody sat down and tried to write a text which would help students understand the target language better, or which would provide a good model of the target language. Now, there's a major distinction between what is a good contrived texts and what is a lame contrived text. As we see in our book on page 72 the text in the box in the center the page is a good example of a really lame contrived text. A good contrived text is a text that is written like an authentic text. It is carefully written so the language use reflects the general language patterns of native users of the language. The writer is conscious of this fact and careful to try to preserve a certain degree of authenticity in their contrivance.
Teachers have been rather hostile to the use of authentic texts in the classroom because they feel that they lack both efficacy and appropriacy. Authentic texts are often too long to be used in the classroom and are generally too difficult for many students to use. At the same time, we have to try to use authentic texts because they reflect real usage patterns and impel students to process language more like native speakers do. Simply put, there is little to no reason to go out of our way to expose our student s and have them practice with language which reflects patterns of usage not used by native speakers. Based on this, exposure to authentic forms is quite essential. At the same time, we cannot expect our students to deal with, to do the same things with, authentic texts as they do with contrived ones. Authentic texts, because they may or may not be longer and more complicated than contrived texts need to be used in different ways. As a general idea; the longer and more complicated the text for the target students the simpler the things we would want our students to do with the text.
5. Of the five sample lessons, which one did you like the best? Why?
There are several good aspects of some of the sample lessons in this chapter. Some attention so the pieces of text are good. For example the authentic text in sample lesson two is quite okay as well as the student derived text in sample lesson three is good too and some of the texts used in sample lesson 5, about the missing monkey, were also quite good. I was, however, not very impressed with the texts in sample lessons 1 and 4. Having said this, however, but not to impressed with the type of practice in sample lesson two. Sample lesson three is good. It is quite simple for the teacher as well as for students and also quite focused. All in all, however, I think I like sample lesson five the best simply because it involves several steps which build on each other. I like chains, especially ones that and the students having to be somewhat creative based on what they've done before.
6. Of the five sample lessons, which one did you like the least? Why?
As mentioned above, I really don't like texts from sample lessons 1 and 4 very much. The dialogue from sample lesson one is pretty lame. It seemed a grand Inquisition where Joe is the grand inquisitor. It is really a one-sided conversation where Joe asked everything and David simply responds like a mindless moron. It does not seem authentic at all or even very interesting. The practice as well for this sample lesson is pretty lame, boring. For sample lesson 4 the dictogloss method is chosen. I like this method and I like the practice, but I don't like this text. The content is not interesting. Its culturally vacuous and simply not engaging. Because the text is so lame it is going to be a kind of penance to try to get the students to try to do any practice with it. I don't think anybody will be having fun in this activity. Dictogloss is difficult. Therefore, we have to try to come up with much more engaging types of texts which will really want the students to put the effort in trying to decipher the content of the text.