A Constructivist Approach to

Grammar: Teaching Teachers to

Teach Aspect
CARL BLYTH
Department OfFrench &Italian
University of Texas at Austin
Awtin, TX 78712-1197
Email: cblyth@mail,utexas.edu

This article demonstrates how a constructivist approach to teacher education helps inexperienced teachers understand the learning and teaching of aspect, a core grammatical
concept. By consciously experiencing the process of narration (i.e., how a speaker perceives real or imagined events and then organizes perceptions into a coherent recounting
of events), apprentice teachers construct a deeper awareness of the form/meaning aspectual correlations of the target language. More generally, this study argues that a constructivist approach to teacher education facilitates the development of an innovative grammar
pedagogy by challenging TAss traditional beliefs about the nature of grammar.

MOST FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHERS

gradually develop a personal set of eclectic beliefs about the teaching and learning of grammar based on a variety of sources: their language learning and teaching experiences,
teacher education courses, participation in
conferences and workshops, and frequent discussions with other foreign language teachers.
Although many teaching practices are taught
explicitly and learned consciously in teacher education programs, others are simply picked
up or constructed in the process of becoming
a teacher, a process akin to acculturation (Cazden, 1988). In this respect, teachers of foreign
languages are no different than teachers of
other subjects or disciplines who also tend to
develop their eclectic beliefs and practices over
time (Clark, 1988; Cohen & Ball, 1990).
Although such pedagogical eclecticism may
represent a healthy skepticism of educational
innovations, it is not always enlightened. Many
foreign language teachers hold traditional beliefs about explicit grammar instruction that
are no longer supported by current research in

The M o d a LanguageJuuntal, 81, i (1997)

0026-7902/97/50-66
$1.50/0
01997 The M o d a LanguageJuurnal

linguistics and second language acquisition

(Lee & VanPatten, 1995; VanPatten, 1996). In
particular, many teachers wedded to traditional
methods of grammar instruction resist learnercentered or constructivist approaches to learning. These teachers persist in their beliefs that
the sequence of a grammatical syllabus can be
derived unproblematically and in a priori fashion from a given language and that communicative skills and metalinguistic awareness can be
taught adequately through teacher explanation
of grammatical rules, followed by mechanical
drills and an occasional communicative exercise.
Given the misconceptions underiying the
teaching of grammar, how can teacher preparation programs help apprentice teachers shift
their focus from teaching to learning? How can
teachers-in-training construct pedagogical
practices that are more firmly based on what is
currently known about the way foreign languages are learned rather than on orthodox, normative beliefs about how languages should be
taught? In an attempt to answer these questions,
this essay examines the teaching and learning of
aspect, specifically the distinction between the
preterit and imperfect tenses of the Romance
languages, for example, the
compare and the
impurfuit in French; the pretkto and the imperfect0
in Spanish.

wsi

Curl Blyth
Aspect is a core grammatical concept, yet
frequently it is poorly understood by students
of French and Spanish (Connor, 1992; Ozete,
1987). Kaplan (1987) states that this aspectual
opposition is perceived by teachers as particularly problematic for English-speaking learners of French (p. 53)* and Garcia and van
Putte (1988) claim that it constitutes one of
the major difficulties encountered by native
speakers of Germanic languages in the learning
of Spanish (p. 263). Graduate teaching assistants (TAs) often find aspect difficult to teach
because they themselves lack a clear understanding of it. What I shall argue below is that
constructivism provides a beneficial framework
for teacher education programs because it allows teachers to gain essential technical knowledge about grammar while also gaining insight
into beliefs concerning pedagogical practices.
CONSTRUCTIVISM
Constructivism is a theory of learning and
knowledge closely associated with the work of
several well-known psychologists: Jean Piaget,
Lev Vygotsky,Jerome Bruner, and Howard Gardner. The most fundamental and radical epistemological principle of constructivism holds
that knowledge does not and can not have the
purpose of producing representations of an independent reality, but instead has an adaptive
function (von Glaserfeld, 1996, p. 3). In other
words, constructivism rejects the idea that human knowledge is a direct reflection of an objective reality. A constructivist would argue that
every human being constructs his or her own
version of reality. As a consequence, multiple
realities or multiple ways of knowing are to be
expected in the classroom. Fosnot (1996a)
states the following:
[the constructivist perspective is viewed as] a selfregulatory process of struggling with the conflict
between existing personal models of the world and
discrepant new insights, constructing new representations and models of reality as a human
meaning-making venture with culturally developed
tools and symbols, and further negotiating such
meaning through cooperative social activity, discourse, and debate. (p. ix)

Although constructivism has become an important poststructuralist psychological theory

of learning, it does not translate neatly into a set
of pedagogical practices. Nevertheless, Fosnot
(1996b) suggests five general principles of constructivism with obvious applications to educational practice: (a) Learning is not the result of

51
development, learning is development; (b) disequilibrium facilitates learning; (c) reflective
abstraction is the driving force of learning; (d)
dialogue within a community engenders further thinking; (e) learning proceeds towards
the development o f . . . central organizing principles that can be generalized across experiences and that often require the undoing or
reorganizing of earlier conceptions (pp. 2930). These general principles point to a learnercentered pedagogy in which the teacher acts as
a facilitator of active and personalized learning
rather than as an expert dispensing prepared
information.
TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR TEACHING
Largely unchanged for decades, the presentation of grammar in foreign language textbooks
and classrooms continues to be based on an
outdated combination of behaviorism, structuralist linguistics, and versions of audiolingualism and cognitive-code theory. In general,
these traditional presentations of grammar are
characterized by a strict sequence of drills as
formulated by Paulston (1972): First learners
practice grammatical structures via mechanical
drills, then meaningful drills, and last, communicative drills. To perform a mechanical drill,
students do not need to attach any meaning to
the grammatical form being practiced. The
classic example of a mechanical drill is the
transformational exercise in which students
manipulate or transform an isolated grammatical item, typically a verb conjugation or a
nominal inflection. Like mechanical drills,
meaningful drills have only one correct response, however, they require students to understand both the stimulus and the response.
Communicative drills also require the student
to understand the meaning of the stimulus and
the response, but differ from meaningful drills
in that there is no single correct answer.
Lee and VanPatten (1995) note that Paulstons grammatical sequence was in keeping
with the period of language teaching dominated by behaviorism, which emphasized observable behavior, avoidance of errors, and habit
formation (p. 91). Today, however, such a traditional presentation of grammar is at odds with
what is known and widely accepted about the
role of input in first and second language acquisition. Traditional approaches pay little, if any,
attention to the effects of input on the developing grammatical system of a learner and instead
focus almost entirely on output or linguistic

52
production. VanPatten (1996, p. 59) claims that
the most serious problem for traditional approaches to grammar is the mismatch between theory and practice, between the important role attributed to input in current theory
and the lack of input in current practice:
With its emphasis on output practice, a traditional
approach to grammar instruction ignores the crucial role of input in second language acquisitionand the definition of input in second language acquisition does not include instructors explanations
about how the second language works. The definition of input is limited to meaning-bearing input,
language that the learner hears or sees that is used
to communicate a message. Thus, in traditional instruction, learners practice a form or structure, but
they are not getting the input that is needed to
construct the mental representation of the structure itself. (VanPatten, 1996, p. 6)

Despite recent theoretical developments that

question a strict sequence of grammar drills,
the emphasis on output practice remains widespread largely because it is supported by
entrenched beliefs among foreign language
teachers: the belief that the grammar of a language consists of a series of isolated facts called
grammar points, and the conviction that grammar is eminently teachable, that is, profitably
taught through explanations of grammar rules.
Unfortunately, in their attempt to capture
grammatical knowledge in the form of explicit
rules, teachers frequently mistake the rule itself
for what it actually represents-the mental process of the speaker. Current textbook rules and
classroom practices used in the teaching of
grammar pay scant attention to the speakers
mental processes and thus forfeit any chance
of attacking meaning on its home ground
(Langacker, 1987, p. 99). In fairness to teachers,
however, some degree of reification is common
to virtually all approaches to grammar. For example, Langacker (1994) points out that key
terms commonly used in linguistic discussions
are invariably nouns: language, thought, concept, cognition, structure, construction, and so
forth. Nevertheless, Langacker maintains that
when he uses a term like concept in his linguistic
analyses, he does not envisage a fixed, static
entity like a physical object lodged somewhere
in the brain (p. 25) but rather, a dynamic mental process.
On the other hand, Rutherford (1987) argues
that a fixed, static entity is exactly what most
traditional language teachers envisage when
they use the term grammar. He refers to the
common-place reification of grammar in for-

The Modern Language Journal 81 (1997)

eign and second language instruction as the
accumulation of entities (p. 17). According to
Rutherford, traditional approaches to the
teaching of grammar are predicated on the beliefs that language is composed of discrete entities and that the essential characteristics of
the entities (e.g., the rules for their formation)
can be directly imparted to the learner: For purposes of teaching language form, it would
seem, one has to get a handle on something,
and the most natural kind of thing to try to
grasp in this way is a solid, stable, fixed piece
of the total language product-something with
edges to it . . . in other words, a language construct (p. 56).
There are many teachers, however, who have
grown wary of a traditional, teacher-centered
approach to explicit grammar instruction. Rejecting the traditional belief that grammar is
acquired through an explicit examination of a
rule followed by application of the rule in the
form of a mechanical drill, many teachers have
opted instead for a so-called comprehensionbased pedagogy in which students come to
know the grammar through exposure to comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982). Although
comprehension-based approaches to instruction may vary greatly in how instructors attempt
to render the input comprehensible, they are
similar in their reduced emphasis on formal
grammatical analysis. Consequently, comprehension-based approaches are often described
as shifting the pedagogical focus from form to
meaning. Today, the terms focus on form and
focus on meaning are frequently understood as
a shorthand for two competing ideologies
within the foreign language teaching profession, the two extremes of an ongoing debate
over the efficacy of grammar instruction. Unfortunately, the competing camps and the debate itself promote a dichotomous conception
of grammar instruction as described by Connor
(1992):
On the one hand, we have concentrated on linguistic form with explicit instruction in grammar rules
at the level of individual, decontextualized sentences, accompanied by some drill of learned forms
and by the fervent hope that these forms would
prove accessible if the student found himself in a
true, communicative situation. On the other hand,
spurning traditional grammar instruction as irrelevant to acquisition, we have endeavored to offer
comprehensible input and guidance in the somewhat inscrutable art of communicative competence,
all the while hoping that comprehensible, proficient output would emerge. (p. 31)

G r l Bhth
RECONCEPTUALIZING
GRAMMAR TEACHING
VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) claim that
the debate between traditional and nontraditional approaches to grammar misses the point.
The question is not whether grammar should
be taught, but how it should be taught. Before
teachers can address this important question,
they must understand the complexity and heterogeneity of grammatical concepts. The either
/or approach to grammar instruction-either
you teach it or you dont-indicates a profound
misconception of grammar as a monolithic and
homogeneous phenomenon, either wholly amenable to instruction or not amenable at all.
Rather, a pedagogical grammar is more profitably conceived of as a heterogeneous group of
linguistic and psychological phenomena that
may be amenable to formal instruction, but to
varying degrees and in varying ways. Such a
conception of grammar would require teachers
to determine more thoughtfully how grammar
should be taught, including which grammatical
phenomena respond best to form-focused instruction, and which will be acquired without
explicit focus if learners have adequate exposure to the language (Lightbown & Spada,
1993, p. 99).
In order to construct a more effective grammar pedagogy, teachers must first address the
deleterious effects of their traditional conception of grammar instruction as an accumulation of entities. Although such an approach has
a certain heuristic appeal, it ultimately conceals
the dynamic relationship between grammar
and the mind. Garrett (1986) argues that the
perennial debate concerning explicit grammar
instruction rarely addresses the crucial question of the psychological status of linguistic
rules:
When we complain that teaching students grammar
rules does not enabIe them to communicate, we
only confirm what linguistic theory has implied all
along: the rules which describe the system attested
to by competence are abstract descriptive generalizations that do not per se describe the mental process by which a speaker formulates or comprehends
any particular utterance. (p. 138)

Garrett advocates a processing approach to

grammar instruction and argues for the relevance of psycholinguistic theory to pedagogical
praxis. Similarly, Rutherford (1987) calls for a
process-oriented conceptualization of grammargrammar as a mental strategy for the processing of discourse (p. 153).

53
Based on studies of input processing, the cognitive processes that learners employ to comprehend meaning-bearing input, VanPatten
(1996) suggests that instruction be based on
structured input activities in which learners
are given the opportunity to process form in the
input in a controlled situation so that better
form-meaning connections might happen compared with what might happen in less controlled situations (p. 60). Structured input is
the centerpiece of what VanPatten refers to as
processing instruction, an approach to grammar instruction that combines a traditional
focus on form with comprehensible input in an
attempt to alter the processing strategies that
learners take to the task of comprehension and
to encourage them to make better formmeaning connections than they would if left to
their own devices (p. 60).
OBSTACLES TO INNOVATION IN
GRAMMAR TEACHING
What would happen if teacher education programs took the suggestions of Garrett, Rutherford, and VanPatten seriously and attempted to
promote a more process-oriented grammar instruction? Unfortunately, current textbooks
and current models of teacher education often
hinder rather than promote pedagogical innovation. Is such an approach to grammar even
feasible given current textbooks? How much
can an inexperienced teacher be expected to
teach against a traditional textbook? Furthermore, can teacher educators reasonably expect
inexperienced teachers to adopt an approach
to grammar instruction that they have never experienced themselves? What would it take to
convince teachers of the efficacy and appropriateness of a more learner-centered, processoriented approach to grammar instruction?
What obstacles prevent the adoption of innovative ways to teach aspect?

Textbooks as Obstacles
Hubbard (1994) claims that the conception
and presentation of pedagogical grammar has
remained virtually unchanged for centuries.
Replacing a static conception of grammar with
a more dynamic one will not be easy given the
current treatment of grammar in textbooks: a
brief grammar explanation followed by a sequence of form-focused drills. Textbooks have a
particularly strong influence on inexperienced
teachers, shaping their teaching practices and

54
even their beliefs about language learning. Often an inexperienced teachers metalinguistic
knowledge is simply a reflection of the textbooks grammatical explanations. Insecure
about their grammatical knowledge, inexperienced teachers tend to view linguistic rules
as the business of the professional linguist and
not of the practitioner. As a consequence, they
accept the textbooks rules at face value, rarely
examining the criteria used in their formulation: clarity, simplicity, predictive value, conceptual parsimony, and relevance ( Westney,
1994, p. 72). Hubbard (1994) notes, however,
that the few recent improvements to pedagogical grammars have come primarily from language teachers rather than from theoretical linguists (p. 49).
Many textbooks not only present grammar according to Paulstons outdated taxonomy of
drills but frequently contain highly misleading
and, at times, inaccurate grammatical information. For example, Herschensohn (1988) found
that in many first-year French textbooks, discourse phenomena, such as the choice of definite and indefinite articles, were routinely explained in sentential terms. Another common
problem with textbooks is the confusion between the separate but related grammatical categories of tense and aspect. Garrett (1986)
notes that traditional labels used in textbooks
to discuss aspect are seriously misleading as
explanations, sometimes actually wrong. She
cites the example of the verb forms imperfect
and present perfect which are said to represent different tenses, but in fact they distinguish
aspect (p. 140).
Textbook explanations of aspect may be
problematic for an inexperienced teacher, yet
they present even greater problems for the linguistically naive student. For example, Dansereau (1987) blames vague, incomplete, contradictory, and generally poor explanations
found in most beginning textbooks (p. 35) for
much of the confusion surrounding aspectual
choice. The most serious problem with textbook explanations, Dansereau argues, is that
they are exception-ridden. Leaky rules are a
common problem in grammatical analysis, especially in pedagogical grammars, which are illsuited to capturing the variability inherent in
language p e r f ~ r m a n c eIn
. ~ this regard, Westney
(1994) distinguishes between low-level rules of
formation and high-level rules of use. Low-level
rules present few problems for the learner because they are axiomatic-easy to understand,
easy to apply. By contrast, high-level rules de-

The Modern LanguageJournal 81 (1997)

scribing aspectual choice are essentially probabilistic statements that prove difficult, if not impossible, to apply in any principled way.
It can be frustrating for both student and
teacher alike to try to apply aspectual rules that
are based on descriptive terms such as continuing event, durative event, punctual
event, single event, repeated event, and so
forth. Dansereau (1987) argues that textbook
rules based on these descriptive terms often
have trouble accounting for even ordinary sentences such as the following:

1. Le mi a rignipendant soixante am.

(The king reigned (preterit) for sixty years.)
2. A huit hares, jitais dam nwn bureau.
(At eight oclock, I was (imperfect) in my
office.)
3. n at souvent venu me V O ~ Z
(He often came (preterit) to see me.)
4. Cet it&& il ne manpait que o h x fois par jour.
(That summer, he only ate (imperfect) two
times a day.) (p. 34-5)
When encountering sentence 1, the student
wonders why an event that continued for sixty
years is encoded in the preterit and not the imperfect, since the imperfect is prescribed for
durative or continuing events. In sentence 2,
the student puzzles over the use of the imperfect, which is supposedly reserved for situations
without any reference to an exact moment of
time. In sentence 3, the student finds the preterit used with an event repeated an indeterminate number of times (often) even though the
textbook rule states that the preterit encodes an
event repeated a determinate number of times.
In sentence 4, the imperfect is used even
though the number of times is clearly stated
(two times a day), a contradiction of the text
book rule prescribing the imperfect for an
event repeated an indeterminate number of
times. Dansereau (1987) concludes from these
examples that the traditional descriptive terminology dooms the student to confusion, frustration, and incorrect usage (p. 37).
An even more serious charge is leveled by
Garrett (1986) who claims that a traditional
presentation of rules found in most textbooks
hinders not only students direct processing of
meaning but even their realization of how such
processing might be undertaken (p. 142). In
other words, textbook rules often lead students
to draw the wrong conclusions about how aspectual meaning maps onto linguistic form in the
minds of native speakers. For example, Dansereau (1987) notes that the use of the terms

Carl Blyth
state versus action, as in the imperfect is
used primarily for states and the preterit is used
primarily for actions, (p. 36) inevitably leads
students to confuse inherent lexical aspect, the
intrinsic nature of an event, with grammatical
aspect. Inherent lexical aspect and grammatical
aspect are often distinguished poorly in textbooks because they exhibit a strong correlation
in actual usage-inherently punctual verbs are
most frequently encoded in perfective aspect
and inherently stative verbs are most frequently
encoded in imperfective aspect. Of course, students must learn that regardless of its inherent
lexical aspect, any verb may be grammatically
encoded for perfectivity or imperfectivity.
Given that textbooks are not likely to change
their presentation of aspect in the near future,
it is largely the responsibility of teacher education programs to help teachers construct new
practices and explanations for the teaching of
aspectual distinctions.

Teacher Educaticm Programs as Obstach

It seems ironic that teacher education programs may actually prove to be obstacles to substantive pedagogical change. But it is never an
easy task to convince teachers to adopt new
practices and, given the constraints imposed on
many teacher education programs, profound
change is often unrealistic. Because of institutional pressures, those involved in university
language program direction feel obliged to
focus methods courses on the immediate needs
and concerns of the institution rather than on
long-term professional development of TAs
(Gore11 & Cubillos, 1993; Pons, 1993). Thus,
teacher education frequently becomes teacher
training with little time devoted to a critical
evaluation of teaching practices and the development of more imaginative or sophisticated
styles of being language teachers (Marks, 1993,
p. 3).
Kinginger (1995)claims that two common
models of teacher education-the craft model
and the applied science model-are poorly
suited to engendering lasting pedagogical
change because they lack the necessary elements of personal experience and reflection:
the uaft model . . . emphasizes imitation and
emulation of the experts professional wisdom,
and the applied science model . . . focuses on a
professions received knowledge, the facts to
be found in journals, textbooks-and courses
on education (p. 125). The craft model of
teacher education is essentially atheoretical:

55
Teaching is understood to be analogous to
skilled activity in general; it develops primarily
through practice and exposure to the activity of
experts (Kinginger, 1995,p. 125).For TAs who
hold a reductionist view of teaching as a set of
techniques to be mastered, the craft model is
often preferred for its perceived practicality. In
the craft model, TAs apprenticing with master
teachers are encouraged to follow demonstrated teaching practices as closely as possible.
Kaplans (1993) autobiographical account of
her own professional development as a French
TA learning the standard rites of pedagogy
provides a good example of several specific
practices designed to teach the difference between the passt? composi and the imparfait;
You learn to draw a time line. You go up to the
blackboard, and its dramatic, and you say, this is
the imperfect: the imperfect is for description; its
for events that havent finished. The time it takes
to say this is just about the time it takes to drag your
chalk line, slowly, all the way across the board. You
pick up your chalk and you explain, chalk in hand,
that the imperfect is used to describe feelings,
states of being; its used to describe background,
landscape, and ongoing thoughts. All sorts of
things with no definite beginning and end. Then
you pause, take hold of your chalk piece like a
weapon, and you stab that blackboard line at one
point, then at another. This is the passe compose,
this staccato: a point on the imperfect line of experience, a discrete action in the past with a beginning and an end that you can name. (p. 142)

One of the major problems with the craft

model is that the TA may learn how to perform
such rituals flawlessly although never gaining
an understanding of their motivation. In the
case of the practices described by Kaplan, inexperienced teachers rarely stop to consider why
aspect is typically represented in visual mnemonics while most grammar points are explained primarily in words. Since the role of the
apprentice is to imitate practice not critique it,
the craft model does little to promote a critical
evaluation of pedagogy. As a consequence, the
craft model, when employed by itself as the
basis for teacher education, actually reinforces
pedagogical tradition by passing on long-held
yet unexamined practices.
The craft model by itself also fails to provide
TAs with important pedagogical content knowledge about linguistic structure and language
learning. A recent survey of graduate TAs in
French at various universities found that TAs
generally lacked important metalinguistic
knowledge despite a strong emphasis on gram-

56
matical analysis throughout their own language
learning experience (Fox, 1993). In particular,
Foxs survey revealed that the model of language with which TAs begin their careers ignores discourse competence as a distinct level
of grammatical organization. As a result, TAs
are prone to conceive of grammar as comprised
of distinct entities that are adequately described at a sentential level. The results of Foxs
finding have particularly disturbing implications for the teaching of aspect: Despite years of
traditional grammar instruction, TAs are often
unable to give a succinct and coherent explanation of aspect because they lack an understanding of its discourse basis. To fill the knowledge
gap, Fox suggests that TAs receive an introduction to linguistic description of the target language as part of their methods course in order
to raise their awareness about grammatical phenomena governed by discourse principles.
Scholars have recently called for TA training
programs to include a greater emphasis on second language acquisition theory and applied
linguistic research (Fox, 1992, 1993; Rankin,
1994). In an effort to introduce TAs to the latest
theoretical research and its implications for
classroom practice, some educators adopt a version of the applied science model. Kinginger
refers to this model as top-down since teachers
are envisioned as the consumers of research
produced by a group of experts. Unfortunately,
methods courses based on the applied science
model tend to reinforce the gap between theory
and practice in the minds of many teachers who
frequently judge such courses as too theoretical
and therefore too impractical. More important,
the suggested pedagogical applications of the
research go unheeded because the TAs are
given little, if any, practical experience.
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH
TO TA EDUCATION
Kinginger (1995), following Wallace (1991),
uses the term reflective practitioner to characterize the ideal teacher who integrates research,
theory, and practical experiences through informed, critical reflection. This synthesis of different ways of knowing is central to a constructivist approach to learning. Implementing more
effective ways to teach grammar requires
teacher education programs to do more than
simply provide models to be emulated (the craft
model) and research to be applied (the applied
science model). Rather, the key to persuading
TAs to adopt a grammar pedagogy consonant

The M

h Language Journal 81 (1997)

with current research is to challenge their traditional beliefs about the nature of grammarwhat grammar is and how it is learned. A constructivist approach is particularly appropriate
for TA education in this regard because it allows
TAs to acquire essential linguistic and pedagogical content knowledge-the
technical
facts-as well as an awareness of their own beliefs about foreign language learning. Fosnot
(1996~)argues that the primary goal of a constructivist approach to teacher education is to
facilitate new ways of knowing:
If understanding the teaching/learning process
from a constructivist view is itself constructed, and
if teachers tend to teach as they were taught, rather
than as they were taught to teach, then teacher education needs to begin with these traditional beliefs
and subsequently challenge them through activity,
reflection, and discourse in both coursework and
field work through the duration of the program.
Most importantly, participants need experiences as
learners that confront traditional views of teaching
and learning in order to enable them to construct a
pedagogy that stands in contrast to older, more traditionally held views. (p. 206)

If personal experience ultimately plays the

most important role in facilitating change in a
teachers practices, then instead of being told
about practices, TAs should directly experience
teaching practices. Rather than observe a master instructor who demonstrates practices on
other students, TAs should experience new
practices as a learner would. Thus, TA educators should demonstrate a given practice on the
TAs themselves who in turn come to understand
the practice from the learners perspective. Finally, TAs must be given the opportunity to reflect on their experiences as learners. The goal
is to help TAs integrate the scientific facts
concerning aspect with their personal experiences through a period of critical reflection
(Wallace, 1991).
TEACHING TAs ABOUT ASPECT
In order to construct practices that more effectively aid students in their understanding of
aspectual choice, TAs must have a clear understanding of aspectual phenomena including the
conceptual knowledge underlying linguistic
performance. To gain a more thorough understanding of the relationship of aspect to cognition, TAs benefit from a review of three related
research areas: studies of L2 acquisition, cognitive linguistics, and gestalt visual perception.
Although technical knowledge is essential for the

57

Carl Blyth

construction of effective grammar instruction,

TA educators must keep in mind that apprentice teachers are unlikely to adopt a given practice based solely on a review of research findings, however pertinent they may be. Thus, the
presentation of basic linguistic knowledge
should be seen as a preliminary stage in foreign
language teacher development, a means to an
end.
Aspect in Second L a n p g z Acquisition Research
TAs routinely confuse aspect with tense.
Therefore, a discussion of aspect should begin
by distinguishing these two grammatical categories. Tense is the grammatical category commonly used in linguistic analysis to refer to the
way a language encodes the time at which an
action denoted by a verb takes place. Thus,
tense is concerned with situating events in reference to other events, in other words, with ordering events along a timeline. Aspect, on the
other hand, is not concerned with temporal
points of reference, but rather with the different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation (Comrie, 1976, p. 3). In
most approaches to aspect, the differences between the perfective aspect and imperfective
aspect are explained in terms of the speakers
perspective. Perfective aspect is equated with
an external perspective from which the speaker
perceives the event as a self-contained whole.
From such an external perspective, one may
envision an events boundaries or outlines-its
beginning and end. In contrast, imperfective
aspect reflects a situation as seen from an
internal perspective; the speaker views the situation from within and is unable to distinguish
temporal boundaries.4
TAs need to understand that students who
confuse inherent lexical aspect (i.e., the intrinsic nature of an event) with grammatical aspect
have posited an incorrect hypothesis about the
morphological system of the target language:
the passt? compmt?/petirito tense encodes actions
and the impa.f.it/zmperficto tense encodes states.
This hypothesis is widely attested in early stages
of interlanguage development and is known as
the Defective Tense Hypothesis following Weist
et al. (1984) because verb tense morphology
is not used to encode tense or grammatical aspect, but rather inherent lexical aspect (Andersen, 1990, p. 307).5 Based on studies of Spanish interlanguage, Andersen (1990) claims that
learners pass through stages in the acquisition
of the Spanish tense/aspect system; learners first

use present tense, then pretknto, and finally imperfecto.6 Andersen notes, however, that when

learners of Spanish first begin to employ the preterit and the imperfect, they do so according to
inherent lexical aspect and prototypicality,
using the pretkito for prototypical punctual
events and the imperfecto for prototypical states.
A prototype is identified by a set of characteristic features, which define it as the best exemplar of its category. For example, events may
be characterized by three semantic features as
seen in Table 1: dynamic, telic, and punctual. A
dynamic event requires some energy to sustain
it; a telic event describes an activity with a clear
terminal point; and a punctual event is instantaneous or momentary.

TABLE 1
Semantic Feature Analysis of Events
~

punctual
telic
dynamic

to
have

to
run

a picture

to paint

+
+

to
recognize

Note. From Anderson, 1990, pp. 310-311.

Based on these three features, events can be

arranged along a continuum. On one end of the
continuum, to have possesses none of the relevant semantic features while at the opposite
end, to recognize possesses all three features.
Andersens claim is that the usage of the pretirito
in second language learning spreads from situations characterized by all three semantic features (to recognize) to situations characterized by two features (to paint a picture),
then to situations characterized by only one feature (to run), and finally, at a relatively advanced stage, to situations characterized by
none of the relevant features (to have). In a
similar fashion, the marking of the imperfectobegins with situations lacking all three semantic
features and spreads in the opposite direction,
eventually to situations possessing all three features. Thus, the two maximally differentiated
events in Table 1-to have and to recognizeare prototypes of the learners incipient aspectual categories-imperfictu and petirito.
Andersens (1993) finding concerning Spanish
L2 discourse is reflective of the discourse of native Spanish speakers as well. Fully proficient native speakers exhibit a similar distributional bias
in the classes of verbs to which they attach preterit and imperfect verbal inflections. For example, there is a much higher frequency of imper-

58
fect than preterit usage with stative verbs and
there is a much higher frequency of preterit use
than imperfect use with punctual verbs. TAs
must understand that statistical properties of
language performance are caused by a speakers
underlying conceptual kndwledge. Any attempt
to explain perfectivity and imperfectivity in
terms of correlations with verb classes in the
speech of native speakers (a common practice of
many TAs) ultimately confuses cause with effect.

Aspect in Cognitive Linguistic Research

The challenge for any pedagogical grammar
of aspect is to capture a speakers underlying
conceptual knowledge of events or situations in a
rule whose usage is clear, simple, and highly predictable. Capturing these abstractions in a pedagogical rule that proves comprehensible to students requires a radical reformulation of our
notion of grammar and of the operation of
grammatical concepts . . . (Garrett, 1986, p.
145). Fortunately for language teachers, the
outlines of such a reformulation already exist in
cognitive-functionalistgrammars. The cognitivefunctionalist approach reflects a shift from the
prevailing conception of linguistic knowledge
characterized by Chomskyan competence as formal, abstract, and modular toward a conception
of language as the reflection of human consciousness (Bolinger, 1977; Chafe, 1993; Fauconnier, 1985; Foley & Van Valin, 1984; Givbn, 1984,
1989; Haiman, 1985; Hopper & Thompson, 1980;
Lakoff, 1987; Lambrecht, 1994; Langacker, 1987,
1991; Wierzbicka, 1988).Neither a standard nor a
formalized linguistic theory, the cognitive-functionalist approach is characterized by the following premises: (a) languages are systems primarily
used for communication, (b) linguistic forms are
best studied in terms of their semantic and pragmatic functions, and (c) actual language use
consists of multipropositional speech whose
organization is guided by discourse principles
(Cooreman & Kilborn, 1990; Tomlin, 1994). In
general, cognitive-functionalist approaches to
language attempt to determine the semantic or
pragmatic conditions that lead to the selection
of alternative grammatical structures such as the
perfective and the imperfective aspect. Tomlin
(1994) claims that such an approach to grammar
is consonant with the basic assumptions of communicative language teaching.
Scholars working within this framework theorize that language structure is directly associated with conceptual structure, which in turn
reflects scenes basic to human experience. Con-

The M o d a LanguageJournal 81 (1997)

sequently, a cognitive grammar takes the
speakers perception of events as the natural
point of departure for explaining aspectual
choice: Within this framework, meanings are
defined relative to conceptual domains, particular linguistic choices are often found to hinge
upon the vantage point from which a given situation is viewed, and category boundaries are
seen as fluctuating and dependent on, among
other things, the conceptualizers experience or
purpose (Rudzka-Ostyn, 1988, p. ix).7 Langacker (1987) argues that experiences that are
basic, recurrent, and sharply differentiated
have a special perceptual saliency and as a consequence emerge as archetypes. Goldberg
(1995) notes that these archetypes are first
equated with prototypes and then are extended
beyond the original prototypical values. Andersens (1990) findings about Spanish interlanguage, that prototypical uses of the preterit
and imperfect are learned before their less prototypical uses, is thus in keeping with the basic
claims of cognitive linguistics.

Aspect in Visual Perception Research

Why do aspectual distinctions lend themselves to a visual representation? How does the
visual representation of a grammar rule help or
hinder the learning of that rule? What is the
semiotic relationship between Kaplans lines
and dashes drawn on the blackboard and the
concepts of perfectivity and imperfectivity? Virtually every discussion of aspect invokes metaphors of visual perception (Andrews,1992; Connor, 1992; Fleischman, 1990; Lunn, 1985; Ozete,
1988; Paprotti, 1988; Terry, 1981; Thogmartin,
1984). And in cognitive linguistic theory, the
existence and comprehensibility of metaphors
linking aspect and perception are meant to be
taken as evidence that the aspect-perception
link is real (Lunn, 1985, p. 52). Some of the
strongest evidence for the reality of the link between aspect and perception is described by Reinhart (1984) who claims that narrative structure
is an artifact of visual perception:

. . . [narrative] organization is a temporal extension

of the principles governing the spatial organization
of the visual field into figure and ground, proposed
by the gestalt theory, and [ . . . ] there is a striking
correlation between the perceptual criteria determining the figure and those determining the narrative foreground. (p. 779)
Andersen (1993) makes a similar claim in his
explanation of the distributional bias of verbal
inflections in Spanish interlanguage discourse:

59

Carl Blyth
The perceptual systems of humans and other animals allow or perhaps we might say force us to distinguish an important or foregrounded entity or
event from all of the unimportant or less important
events . . . According to this basic notion of distinguishing figure from ground, we would say that the
learner perceives the punctual or telic events as key,
important, foreground,and learns to mark them as
such and to not mark the background events or
situations. (p. 328)

Reinharts and Andersens basic claim is that

some experiences are perceptually more salient
than others. These salient events are conceived
of in terms of a foreground that stands out
against a background of less salient, out-offocus events. In gestalt theory, visual perception
of a figure defined as an intuitive notion of
recognizable form, depends on the relevant
background (PaprottC, 1988, p. 458). In other
words, we are able to recognize a figure or perceive a form because the background enables it
to stand out. The functional dependency of the
figure on the ground may be conceived of like a
black dot on a computer screen. As one blackens the screen, the dot becomes less and less
perceptible, eventually disappearing altogether
into the background.
Following Labov (1972), Reinhart equates the
foregrounded events of a narrative with the sequence of chronologically ordered main clauses
encoded in perfective aspect, the so-called backbone or plotline of the story. In essence, all narratives depend on perfective events to advance
the plot. In contrast, backgrounded clauses in
the imperfective aspect do not advance the plot
since they are not temporally ordered and may
be displaced within the text without changing
the temporal order of the story. Reinhart argues
that the three criteria of foregrounded eventssequentiality, punctuality, and perfectivity-are
related to principles of gestalt perception of the
figure. For example, the criterion of temporal
sequentiality finds a spatial analogue in the gestalt principle of good continuity. This principle
states that we organize shapes according to contours and that continuous contours are given
highest priority in visual perception. In Figure 1,
we see a white stripe on black stripes rather than
four black figures, since the white stripe is the
continuous shape. Similarly, events that are temporally sequenced are easy to identify on the
grounds of good continuity. This phenomenon,
the perception of sequential events in terms of a
continuous contour, is apparent in the plotline
and backbone metaphors so common to discussions of narrative.

[Figures 1 through 5 are from finczpks of Gestalt

Psychology by Kurt Koffka, copyright 1935 by
Harcourt Brace & Company and renewed in
1963 by Elizabeth Koffka, reproduced by permission of the publisher.]
FIGURE 1
Continuous Contours/Privileged Interpretation

According to gestalt theory, smaller areas are

perceived more readily as figures and larger
areas are perceived more readily as background. The temporal equivalent of spatial size
is the duration of an event. Punctual events are
temporally smaller and are therefore readily
perceived as figures against the temporally
larger durative event. In Figure 2, the image is
ambiguous because the black and white areas
are approximately the same size. Is it a black
cross on a white background or vice versa? The
mind readily entertains both interpretations.
FIGURE 2
Ambiguous Figure/Ground Relationship

In Figure 3, however, the mind entertains

only one interpretation-a smaller white cross
(the figure) is distinguished from a larger black
background.
FIGURE 3
Unambiguous Figure/Ground Relationship

The principle of size is related to the principle of closure, which states that the more
enclosed an area is, the more it is figure-like.
Note that completed or perfective events are

60

The M0ah-n LanguageJournal 81 (1997)

bounded or closed on both ends (their beginning and ends are in-focus). In Figure 4, we see
three thin figures and a remaining line although other interpretations are possible (e.g.,
three thick figures).
FIGURE 4
Ambiguous Partially Bounded Figures

II (I II I
When the space is more fully enclosed as in
Figure 5, the ambiguity is eliminated; we see
only three rectangular figures with one remaining bracket on the far left.
FIGURE 5
Unambiguous Fully Bounded Figure

TEACHING TAs TO TEACH ASPECT

The review of pertinent research on aspect
should help TAs gain a better understanding of
the link between a speakers subjective perception of events and his or her aspectual choices.
My ultimate goal as a TA educator, however, is
to help the TA translate the newly acquired
technical understanding of aspect into teaching
practice. In order to accomplish this, apprentice teachers must be allowed to raise their own
questions about the instruction of aspect and to
test their own hypotheses about what is and is
not an effective practice. In keeping with a constructivist approach to TA education, my role is
not so much to teach teachers how to teach aspect, but rather to facilitate and guide TAss
own construction of teaching practices.

Disequilibrium and Rejbctiue Abstraction

I begin my lessons on the instruction of aspect by challenging the TAss received wisdom
concerning the preterit/imperfect distinction
(disequilibrium facilitates learning). Recalling
Dansereaus (1987) critique of textbook explanations of aspect, I give counterexamples to every so-called usage rule that the TAs are able to
formulate. With their received wisdom fully unbalanced (disequilibrium), TAs naturally seek

to restore that balance and are ready to entertain alternative approaches to explaining aspectual choice. Through a series of experiencebased activities followed by personal reflection
(reflective abstraction is the driving force of
learning), I help TAs understand how grammatical form is linked to aspectual meaning. I
introduce the TAs to a technique described in
Connor (1992), which extends already established, discourse-level notions of aspectual contrast based on plot versus background (Dansereau, 1987; Thogmartin, 1984 ) or intrigue vs.
arrike plan by rendering such notions concrete
through visualization (p. 323). The greatest advantage of this technique is that it reduces the
various contradictory rules found in most textbooks into one concrete, visualizable template
in which figure vs. ground equals plot vs. background equals [preterit] vs. [imperfect] (p. 323).
Beginning foreign language students typically decide between the two competing past
tenses based on the most immediate of contexts, the inherent aspect of the verb, thereby
ignoring the larger narrative discourse (Garcia
&van Putte, 1988).TAs can distinguish an inappropriate or infelicitous aspectual choice, but
nevertheless have difficulty explaining its inappropriateness or infelicity due to their lack of a
transparent metalanguage and to their limited
understanding of the role of the preterit and
the imperfect in the construction of a narrative
text. To overcome these problems, I discuss the
preterit and imperfect tenses with TAs almost
exclusively in terms of the role these aspectual
categories play in creating the foreground/
background structure of narrative. This relatively simple distinction is easily demonstrated
by asking a TA to give a plot summary of a film
(preferably a mystery). With the plotline events
written on the board, TAs soon understand that
the temporal sequence of events implies causality and that a change in the chronology of
events would lead to a change in the meaning of
the story, sometimes destroying the storys coherence altogether. Establishing the actual
order of the events is of utmost importance to
the plot of any mystery.
In order to contrast the sequentiality of foreground events to the nonsequentiality of background events, I have TAs read short newspaper
articles about recent crimes or accidents. Not
only is this type of text characterized by a
straight forward plotline, but it also includes
crucial supporting information (e.g., the driver
was drunk at the time of the accident; the burglar was wearing a black ski mask; the assailant

Carl Bbth

was known to one of his victims, etc.). Visual

mnemonic devices are used to further reinforce
the narrative functions of the foreground and
background (Sharwood Smith, 1988c; Westfall
& Foerster, n.d.). While reading the stories, TAs
must draw an arrow (+) above all verbs that
move the plot forward and a circle (0)above all
verbs that do not advance the plot. Next, the
TAs list the foreground events (e.g., the events
indicated by an arrow) in chronological order
and determine the scope of the background
events. Upon reflection, TAs discover that some
background events have scope over the entire
story, while others have scope over a sequence
of events, and still others have scope over a single event. TAs also discover during this activity
that the wider the scope of a background event,
the easier it is to displace the event to other
points in the narrative.

Dialogue Within a Community of h a m

When TAs are proficient at distinguishing
background from foreground events in narrative, I ask them to remember a personal anecdote that they would be willing to share in class.
While replaying the anecdote in their minds
eye, the TAs identify critical moments appearing in the foreground of the stream of events.
Connor (1992) contends that perceived events
are stored in memory as film-like images:
elements in the film-like substrate of mental imagery which appeared closer, brighter, clearer, more
in focus in the minds eye would be matched with
plot-advancing events and thus the pass6 compose
(Boyer, 1985) while those elements which appeared
hazier, vaguer . . . less salient (Wallace, 1982,
p. 205) would be matched to background states or
events and hence, to the imparfait. (p. 322)

Connor reports that students who use this visualization technique significantly increase the
accuracy of their usage of the preterit and of
the imperfect in oral and written production.
As soon as TAs have replayed the incident and
categorized the events as foreground or background, they each tell their story to the class in
the target language and explain their aspectual
choices in terms of discourse structure.
Although TAs begin to understand the link
between aspectual choice and speaker perspective, they may fail to grasp narration at a deeper
level. It is important for TAs to understand that
a narrative is the creation of a narrator who
intentionally, although largely unconsciously,
chooses what to attend to when perceiving the
seamless web of history (Ong, 1982, p. 12).

61
Fleischman (1990) clarifies this point with her
definition of narrative event as a hermeneutic
construct for converting an undifferentiated
continuum of the raw data of experience, or of
the imagination, into the verbal structures we
use to talk about experience: narrative, stories
(p. 99). To make these ideas more concrete, I
play a 60-second video clip (a television commercial with an obvious plotline) and ask the
TAs to jot down their own versions of the story.
The TAss narratives are compared and the differences in narrative structure are noted and
analyzed. TAs must justify their aspectual
choices to one another using the foreground/
background distinction as well as a visual metalanguage borrowed from cinematography (closeup, wide angle shot, out-of-focus, etc.) rather
than the traditional grammatical terminology.
The sharing of viewpoints within the community of learners helps TAs to see how real world
events (here, video events) are perceived by different narrators and then transposed into significantly different narratives (dialogue within
a community engenders further thinking).
When TAs share with each other their different
aspectual choices, they begin to understand why
it is possible for students to represent the same
events in different ways.
Next, I hand out several brief narrative versions of the same 60-second commercial, this
time written by native speakers who had previously viewed the video clip. When the TAs read
the narratives written by native speakers, they
have not only seen the narrated events with
their own eyes, but they have discussed various
ways of grounding these events (i.e., packaging
the events as either part of the foreground or
background). Other video clips are used in the
same manner to help the TAs comprehend the
steps by which native speakers express and comprehend meaning in narrative discourse (Garrett, 1986, p. 138).

G?ntral OrganizingRinciples
These activities are followed by a period of
informed reflection during which TAs are encouraged to derive general principles about
language learning based on their personal experiences and their newly acquired scientific
knowledge. TAs generally conclude that learners must experience narrative events for themselves in order to construct the concept of narrativity and the correlated concept of aspect.
Reflecting on the hypothesis in cognitive linguistics that the encoding of any event is di-

62
rectly linked to the subjective perception of
that event, TAs come to realize that the teaching of aspect must be phenomenologically
grounded such that percepts of a given event
(the impression of the event as perceived by the
senses) must be linked to concepts of perfectivity and imperfectivity (the abstractions derived from specific instances). Thus, by selfconsciously experiencing the process of narration, TAs naturally develop central organizing
principles of aspectual choice-the notions of
cognitive processing and discourse-that closely
reflect Rutherfords (1987) conceptualization
of grammar as a mental strategy for the processing of discourse.
The quintessentially constructivist view of aspect formulated by the TAs themselves contradicts long-standing pedagogical practices, most
notably the common use of cloze passages to
teach aspectual choice to beginning students.
TAs realize that cloze passages and third person
narratives are mediated by someone elses subjectivity and thus are inherently problematic. It
matters little that the author is a famous writer
and that the passage is from a well-known work
of literature; a cloze passage essentially requires
the student to reconstruct the mental processes
of someone elses mind, to see events through
someone elses eyes, a tricky task even for native
speakers. Forced to fill in the correct aspectual choice without access to the authors mind
or to the real life events, students inevitably resort to a strategy of playing the probabilities
based on inherent lexical aspect and prototypicality (Oh, its a stative verb so it must be
imperfective.). As a consequence, the use of
cloze passages in beginning language classes
unwittingly reinforces the erroneous Defective
Tense Hypothesis posited by most beginning
language learners. Rather than cloze passages
of fictional narratives or even nonfictional
third person accounts of past experience, TAs
now understand why first person true narrative
representations or personal accounts of lived
experience are more transparent for the learner
and thus more effective for teaching aspect
(Oller, 1993).
Another key principle for the teaching of aspect, which the TAs invariably adopt following a
constructionist approach, is the importance of
visual input. Ideally, visual information should
accompany linguistic input so that learners may
establish their own pragmatic mappings between the visual concepts of figure and ground,
the discourse concepts of foreground and background, and the grammatical concepts of per-

The Modern LanguageJournal81 (1997)

fectivity and imperfectivity. Current models of

cognition now recognize what language teachers have long taken for granted-that a given
mental representation is linked to other representations in the mind in such a way that words
are associated with images (Paivio, 1986). Although TAs are generally aware of the important role visual aids play in listening comprehension and in vocabulary learning, they
frequently do not consider the role visual representations might play in the acquisition of
grammatical knowledge. Sharwood Smith (1988b)
argues that . . . maximizing visual representations to accompany, illustrate, and explain linguistic items may well improve learning a great
deal . .
(p. 213). This principle contradicts
most textbooks reliance on written texts to exemplify aspectual distinctions. If aspect is based
on gestalt principles of visual perception as Reinhart claims, then learners must see the events in
order to construe the foreground/background
relationship between the events in a narrative.
This means that the teaching of aspect should
make as liberal a use of visual input as possible,
and in particular, of films and video. Although
recent trends in video and interactive multimedia appear promising, the importance of visual input for the acquisition of grammatical
concepts remains to be fully explored by most
commercial publishing companies, two exceptions being the videobased programs French In
Action (Capretz, 1994) and Destinos (1992).
.I

CONCLUSION
The constructivist approach to TA education
advocated in this article is similar to the notion
of raising grammatical consciousness as explicated by Sharwood Smith (1988a) and Rutherford (1987).In such an approach, all pedagogical
materials and teaching practices are properly
viewed as aids to learning but never as the objects to be learned, an important distinction.
Thus, TAs should not focus exclusively on memorizing specific rules and practices during their
teacher preparation courses in order to reproduce or perform them later in their classrooms,
rather they should strive to understand the process by which grammatical forms map onto
meanings. To teach aspect, TAs must selfconsciously experience narration in order to
envision aspect both as a formal system and as a
process for creating meaning. The development
of effective practices and materials for the
teaching of aspect requires an understanding of
the form/meaning correlations of a language

Carl Bhth
but, more important, it requires an understanding of how native and nonnative speakers perceive events and then selectively construct a
narrative out of their perceptual experiences.
Teacher educators may worry that TAs will
find the cognitive notions discussed here to be
too abstract and too removed from the realities
of classroom practice. In response to such reasonable objections, Rutherford (1987) reminds
teachers and teacher trainers of the nature of
language learning:

. . .what happens inside ones head, as concepts are

formed and transmitted in what we know as language, is an absolutely crucial concern for any educational discipline that takes the nature of language itself as its point of departure. And language
teaching is such a discipline. The sort of cognitive
change that language teaching is intended to bring
about-namely, the learning of a language-is one
that is ultimately explainable only by recourse to the
kinds of thmtical abstractionr that are needed for research
into how the mind actually works. (p. 2, emphasis
added)
If teacher educators are serious about helping
TAs reconstruct traditional grammar practices
along cognitive lines, then they must accept the
inevitable transfusion of psychology into the
profession as recognized by Sharwood Smith
(1988b): It has become increasingly evident in
recent years that what is by convention termed
applied linguistics, in that it has to do with foreign language learning and instruction, should
be as much applied psychology as applied linguistics . . . (p. 206).
Lee and VanPatten (1995) observe that despite research that calls into question a traditional presentation of grammar, most textbooks
have changed very little in the past few decades:
If we glance at language textbooks (including those
that are described as communicative and or proficiency oriented), it appears that instruction in
grammar adheres to several tenets rooted in behaviorism (the belief in reinforcing good habits) and
historical inertia ( T h e common argument of
Thats the way its been done for years and years
and years). (p. 90)

As long as textbooks remain unchanged, teachers will have a hard time changing how they
teach grammar. Thus, teacher education programs must clearly demonstrate the benefits of
nontraditional materials and practices that are
more closely informed by research insights
from such allied fields as second language acquisition, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics,
and psychology. More specifically, the challenge
is to help apprentice teachers understand the

63
advantages of an alternative approach to
grammar instruction, one which seeks to link
meaning with structure or form, moves the
learner from input to output, and is more
learner centered than what we see in traditional
grammar instruction (Lee & VanPatten, 1995,
p. 90).
The key to meeting this challenge lies in what
our teachers believe about the nature of grammar, for without a transformation in teachers
beliefs about grammar, there will be little
change in grammar instruction. A constructivist approach to teacher education is wellsuited to instructional reform because it helps
teachers deconstruct the traditional conception of grammar and in its place reconstruct a
new one, a conception of grammar as a mental
process.

NOTES

The term tense as commonly used in pedagogical grammars of French and Spanish is a misnomer
since the relevant distinction is aspectual and not
temporal. See Nehls (1992) for a crosslinguistic analysis of aspect as it relates to language pedagogy.
2 In a report on the Canadian French immersion
programs, Harley (1986) noted that students who had
received from 1000 to 3500 hours of content instruction had made minimal progress in marking aspect
in the verb in the past (p. 73). Swain (1985) makes
similar observations of French immersion students
who continued to struggle with the correct choice of
tense when narrating the events of a story.
On the other hand, GivBn (1984) argues that it is
unrealistic to expect rules based on natural language
usage to be categorical (i.e. without exception): Categories conform to their basic definitions in the majority of cases, and rules obey their strict description
more likely than not. But there is always a certain
amount of messy residue left, one that does not seem
to fit into the category/rule in the strictest sense of
their definition. This is an old dilemma with cognizing and perceiving organisms, having to do with how
to process input categorically while allowing for fuzzy
edges (p. 12). One attempt to systematize language
variation is the variable rule, a statistical description
of the relative influences of factors involved in the
production of any given utterance. The variable rule
was originally used for sociolinguistic research but
has been extended to the analysis of interlanguage
variability ( Tarone, 1988), although its psychological
status remains controversial (Gregg, 1990).
The linguistic distinction between the terms perfective and imperfective is clarified by their etymologies. The term per-ctive comes from the past participle perfecturn of the Latin verb perficere (to do to

64
completion). The modern French infinitive parfaire
and the modern English infinitive to pcrjit have the
same sense (e.g., to make perfect and to complete).
Although most English speakers are familiar with the
evaluative sense of the verb, to improve something to
the point of perfection, they are frequently unaware
of the second sense intended by linguists, to d o something to the point of completion.
This same hypothesis has been shown to be operative in the acquisition of both the L1 and L2 verb
inflectional system (Antinucci and Miller, 1976;Bronckart and Sinclair, 1973;Economides, 1985) as well as in
the evolution of creole languages (Bickerton, 1975,
1981;G i v h , 1982).
Kaplan (1987)claims an identical developmental
sequence for the acquisition of French as a second
language from prisent to
composi to impatfoit
For a cognitive linguistic approach to tense and
aspect, see Lunn (1985)and Paprottt (1988).

REFERENCES

Andersen, R. (1990).Developmental sequences: The

emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition. In T. Huebner & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language
a t q u i s i h and linguistic thaories (pp. 305-324).
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Andersen, R. (1993).Four operating principles and
input distribution as explanations for underdeveloped and mature morphological systems.
In K. Hyltenstam &A. Viberg (Eds.), Aogression
and regression in language: sociocultural, neuropsychological, and linguistic perspectives (pp. 309339).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andrews, B. (1992).Aspect in past tenses in English
and French. ZntmnafionalRNlle of A f l U Linguistics, 30,281-297.
Antinucci, F., & R. Miller. (1976).How children talk
about what happened. Journal of Child Language
3,169-189.
Bickerton, D. (1975).@namics ofa creole s y s t m . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bickerton, D. (1981).Roots of hnguage. Ann Arbor, MI:
Karoma Publishers.
Bolinger, D. (1977).Meaning rand f m . London: Longman.
Boyer, H. (1985).L'tconomie des temps verbaux dans
le discours narratif. L.e&n&
nwobne, 53, 7389.
Bronckart, J. P., & H. Sinclair. (1973).Time, tense, and
aspect. coglutiun, 2,107-130.
Capretz, P. J. (with Abetti, A., Germain, M. A., & Wylie, L.) (1994).French in actiun: A bepnning mrse
in language and culture. (2nd ed.). New Haven,
C T Yale University Press.
Cazden, C. (1988).Clarmxmr discourn: The language .f
teaching and /earning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

The Moakrn LanguageJournal 81 (1997)

Chafe, W. (1993).Lliswurse, ~ I ~ U U W S S and
,
time: The
frow and duplammnt of m c i o u c expmence in speuking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Clark, C. (1988).Asking the right questions about
teacher preparation: Contributions of research
on teacher thinking. EduGafirmalZhxm~17,512.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, K. L. (1990).Policy and practice:
An overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analy~i~,
12, 327-345.
Comrie, B. (1976).Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, M. (1992).A processing strategy using visual
representation to convey the pass6 compost/
imparfait distinction in French. ZnternutionalRevue of Applied Linguistics, 30, 321-328.
Cooremen, A., & Kilborn, K. (1990).Functionalist linguistics: Discourse structure and language processing in second language acquisition. In T.
Huebner and C. Ferguson (Eds.), C70sscumts in
second language acquisitwn and linguistic theories
(pp. 195-224). Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Dansereau, D. (1987).A discussion of techniques used
in the teaching of the pass6 composcYimparfait
distinction in French. The French Review, 61, 3338.
Destim: An Znhoductiun to Spanish. (1992).Anneberg/
CPB Collection.
Economides, P.J. (1985).The erpwsUm of tenre and aspect
in the Englrsh interlanguage of a Viehurmese child Unpublished master's thesis, UCLA.
Fauconnier, G. (1985).Ma& spaces: Aspects of meaning
umstncctMn in natural lanCambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Fleischman, S. (1990).Tenre and narrativity: Fnrm medicvalperfmnce to modafiction. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Foley, W. A., &Van Valin, R. Jr. (1984).FunctMnal syntax
and universd p m w . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996a).Preface. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Ca5-hduim: zhq peqwtmq rmd pmdrre (pp. ixxi). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996b).Constructivism: A psychological
theory of learning. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Cbnstrw
tivirm: T?amy,perspectives, andjrrmtice (pp. 8-33).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Teachers construct constructivFosnot, C. T. (1996~).
ism: The center for constructivist teaching/
teacher preparation project. In C. Fosnot (Ed.),
Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice
(pp. 205-216). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fox, C. A. (1992).Toward a revised model of TA training. In J. Walz (Ed.), Development and StLpnVrna
of teaching assistunts in forkgn languap. AAUSC
issues in language program direction (pp. 191207). Boston: Heinle.

Carl Blyth
Fox, C. A. (1993). Communicative competence and
beliefs about language among graduate teaching assistants in French. The Modern Language
J o u ~ 77,
, 313-324.
Garcia, E. C., & van Putte, F. C. (1988). The value of
contrast: contrasting value of strategies. Inter~ t i Reuu
d of Applied Linguistics, 26, 263-280.
Garrett, N. (1986). The problem with grammar: What
kind can the language learner use? The Modern
Language J O U T T L70,~ ,133-148.
Givbn, T. (1982). Tense-aspect-modality: The creole
prototype and beyond. In P. Hopper (Ed.),
-T
Bebuaa se))~& a
d
(pp. 115163). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givbn, T. (1984). Syntax, vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givbn, T. (1989). Mind, code, and context: Essays in pmgmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldberg. A. (1995). Conshuctimrr: A colnshuGfion grammar appmach to argument stmcture Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gorell, L. C., & Cubillos, J. (1993). TA programs: The
fit between foreign language teacher preparation and institutional needs. In D. Benseler
(Ed.), The dynumics of language pmgram directh.
AAUSC issues in language program direction
(pp. 91-109). Boston: Heinle.
Gregg. K. (1990). The variable competence model of
second language acquisition, and why it isnt.
Applted Linguistics, 11,364-383.
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: Iwnzcity and Ooswn.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B. (1986). Age in second hnguage acyuisition.
Avon, England Multilingual Matters.
Herschensohn, J. (1988). Linguistic accuracy and textbook grammars: The determiner system in
French. The Modern Language J m d , 72, 409414.
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in
grammar and discourse. Languagv, 56, 251-299.
Hubbard, P. L. (1994). Non-transformational theories
of grammar: Implications for language teaching. In T. Odlin (Ed.) Pmpectivcs on pedagogical
grammar (pp. 49-71). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kaplan, A. (1993). French h m : A memoir. Chicago:
Chicago University Press,
Kaplan, M. (1987). Developmental patterns of past
tense acquisition among foreign language
learners of French. In B. VanPatten, T. Dvorak,
& J. Lee, (Eds.), Foreign languugv learning: A research Pe~pecCriVe(pp. 52-60). Cambridge, MA:
Newbury House.
Kinginger, C. (1995). Toward a reflective practice of
TA education. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redefining
the h n d m i e s of language study. AAUSC issues in
language program direction (pp. 123-144).
Boston: Heinle.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in secund
l a m aquisitim Oxford, England Pergamon.

65
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience
in narrative syntax. In Language in thc i n w city
(pp. 354-396). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Woma,fire, and other dangnmcs things:
What catepia m d about the mind Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). ln$mn&m shvctzlrc and senhce
f017n:Afhemyofbfic,fonyandthemcntaln@zw&tm
ofdismm @wn& Cambridge studies in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Fmndationr of cognitive grammar: Themetical perspzctivcs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). F a c n d a h of cognitive grammar: Desmpiw afllicatia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1994). Culture, cognition, and
grammar. In M. Piitz (Ed.), Language contact and
language conjhct (pp. 25-53). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative
language teaching happen New York: McGraw Hill.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languap are
C
e
n
a
r
e
d Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lunn, P. V. (1985). The aspectual lens. Htganic Linguistics, 2, 49-61.
Marks, E. (1993). Memory, desire, and pleasure in the
classroom: La grande mademoiselle. MLA Newsletur; 25, 3-4.
Nehls, D. (1992). An analysis of verbal aspect as a
cross-linguistic category: Implications for language teaching. InternuCiollalRevueofApplredLing ~ i s l i c ~30,255-280.
,
Oller, J. W. (1993). Reasons why some methods work.
In J. W. Oller, Jr. (Ed.), Mcthodc that work: Idcatfor
literacy and language tachers (pp. 374-386). Boston: Heinle.
Ong, W. (1982). Oral remembering and narrative
structure. In D. Tannen (Ed.), spaken and written
language: ExpIoring orality and literacy (pp. 12-24).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ozete, 0. (1988). Focusing on the preterite and imperfect. H e n i n , 71, 687-691.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental n g r e s m t a h : A dual coding
a*.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paprotti, W. (1988).A discourse perspective on tense
and aspect in standard modern Greek and
English. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.) Topicr in cognitive linguistics (pp. 447-506). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Paulston, C. B. (1972). Structural pattern drills: A
classification. In H. Allen & R. Campell (Eds.),
TmhingEngllSh as a second language (pp. 129-138).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pons, Cathy R. (1993). TA supervision: Are we preparing a future professoriate? In David P. Benseler
(Ed.) The dynamics of language program directinn.
AAUSCissves an languagvpmgmm direction (pp. 1931). Boston: Heinle.
Rankin, J. (1994). Hit or miss, or missing: The role of

66
second language acquisition in language
teacher training. Die Untenichtspaxis, 27, 18-27.
Reinhart, T. (1984). Principles of gestalt perception
in the temporal organization of narrative texts.
Linguistics, 22, 779-809.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (Ed.), (1988). Toplcs in mgtzitiue linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Rutherford, W. (1987). second languagegrammar: Learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1988a). Consciousness raising
and the second language learner. In W. Rutherford and M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grummar
andseamdlanguqeknching:Ab m k o f d v ( p p . 5160). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1988b). Applied linguistics and
the psychology of instruction: A case for transfusion? In W. Rutherford and M. Sharwood
Smith (Eds.), Grammar and secund language teaching: A book of readings (pp. 206-223). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1988~).Imperfective versus
progressive: An exercise in contrastive pedagogical linguistics. In W. Rutherford and M.
Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching: A h k of readings (pp. 224-230).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some
roles of comprehensible inputs and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass
& C. G. Madden (Eds.), Znput in second language
acquisition (pp. 236-254). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in intmlanguage. London:
Edward Arnold.
Terry, R. (1981). Concepts of pastness: The @si composi and the imperfect. Foreign Language Annals,
14, 105-110.
Thogmartin, C. (1984). Tense, aspect, and context.
The French Revkw, 57, 344-349.

The Modern LanguageJournal 81 (1997)

Tomlin, R. (1994).Functional grammars, pedagogical
grammars, and communicative language teaching. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Pmpctivar on pedagogical
grammar (pp. 140-178). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input procRFsing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B., & T. Cadierno. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in second Language Acquisitiun, 15, 225-243.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of
constructivism. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Thewy, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3-7).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Wallace, M. (1991). Trainingf m i g n language teachers: A
refictive approach Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, S. (1982). Figure and ground: The interrelationships of linguistic categories. In P. Hopper
(Ed.), Tase-mfxct:Betwen semantics and pagmatics
(pp. 201-223). Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Weist, R. M., Wysocka, H., Witkowska-Stadnik, K.,
Buczowska,W., & Konieczna, E. (1984).The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence of
tense and aspect in child Polish. Journal of Child
Language, 11, 347-374.
Westfall, R., 8c Foerster, S. (n.d.). Beyond aspect: New
strategies for teaching the preterite and the imperfect. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Texas.
Westney, P. (1994). Rules and pedagogical grammar.
In T. Odlin (Ed.), Pe@ectiues on pedapgical grammar (pp. 72-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics o f g r a m k r . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

MLJ Offers No-Fee Copying for Course Packs

THE MLJIS PLEASED TO REMIND READERS THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT FEE FOR USING ITS
articles in course packs for students. We hope that this policy will encourage learning and scholarship by helping instructors make materials available to students. To constitute permission to use MLJ
material just copy this announcement and place it in your course pack. There will continue to be a
copyright charge for other use of MLJmaterial. For further information, contact:
Margaret Walsh
The University of Wisconsin Press
114 N. Murray Street
Madison, WI 53715-1199
Tel: (608)262-4925
Fax: (608 262-7560
Email: mawalshl@facstaff.wisc.edu