Task 1: Discussion of changes in concepts of grammar (2000 words)

Discuss changes in concepts of grammar in recent years. Identify what you feel are the
reasons for these changes.

Introduction

How did I learned to communicate in English in one year with and acceptable fluency The answer is
simple, by contrasting basic first language (L1) with foreign language (L2) grammar and using
metalanguage while asking questions about language and communicative issues. This has been my
answer for a long time, but as time goes by I have acknowledge that that grammarian learning style was
highly accompanied by real communicative opportunities I had at that moment. However, structural
grammar guided me all the time through the way of my L2 acquisition.

In Thornburys words:
Grammar is partly the study of what forms (or structures) are possible in a language That is,
it is the study both of the way words are chained together in a particular order, and also of what
kinds of words can slot into any one link in the chain. (Thornbury, 1999:1) 1

Teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) has been my job the last seven years. Since the pretty
beginning I have used a structuralist grammar view of teaching for my students. By this I mean just as
Bourke (2005, p.86)2 explains structuralist grammar views language as a taxonomy of set structures or
patterns, which act as templates for the generation of any number of sentences on the same pattern.
The main reason for doing so was that I applied that same method when I learned English when I was
eighteen years old. Nobody told me it was a part of language I could apply in order to learn it. The
process of learning began just by using metalanguage in a contrastive way: How do I say this Spanish
tense in English? What is the corresponding form of subjunctive, infinitive, passive voice? and so on.

My first TFL session was in 2009 in a small indigenous community in Oaxaca, Mexico. Since then, I
have only taught to young adult university students. So, my whole understanding about grammar in
TFL is mostly based on this context. Even though I used grammar structures for my teaching, many
examples were chosen according to students context as well as simulation activities were carried out
by them in order to use those structures.

Also, I have consciously changed the way I teach English grammar in order to communicate. So,
nowadays two main reflections have come up about my teaching style:

1. Is my teaching believe of learning English through grammar analysis a no longer used practice
in modern English classrooms?
2. Have I done it wrong all this time teaching my students to analyze those basic parts of grammar
they need in order to develop their own learning process?

1 Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Pearson.

2 Bourke, J.(2005). The grammar we teach. Reflections on English Language Teaching. 4,

85-97.
I will address these two questions as a whole because the main point is covered by the two: grammar
while learning EFL.

1. Grammar is not a problem, but the problems solution

Coming up with strategies for our daily activity make us to create our own theories about teaching.
Borg, 1999, p.157)3 defines these theories often consist of implicit personal understandings of
teaching and learning which teachers develop through educational and professional experiences in their
lives. So, teachers theories are a common, necessary and valid activity in order to improve our
students L2 learning process. Teaching L2 through the analysis of basic grammar concepts was an
understanding I had from my own L2 learning experience.

Knowing a basic definition of grammar is not the debate while teaching L2, but whether or not it is
useful during the process for L2 learners. While having a conversation we are rarely thinking in the
grammar behind our speech. According to this, the conclusion could be that there is no need for
grammar knowledge while learning L2.

However, by being the vehicle of understanding how the parts of language can be put together in order
to produce meaning, grammar help us to develop our language in order to produce simplified or more
meaningful messages depending of the situation in which we are having communication.

As Batstone (1994, p.4)4 clearly explains:

Language without grammar would be chaotic countless words without the indispensable
guidelines for how they can be ordered and modified so it would be impossible to learn a
language effectively without drawing on grammar in some way.

The challenge while teaching L2 is to address its grammar in a way learners take advantage of it,
because mastering grammatical structures doesnt mean the leaner knows the target language.

Structures alone are not going to make anyone to communicate fluently in the real world. If a teacher
focus its teaching exclusively with structuralist grammar, this teacher will produce students with a very
good knowledge about structures but communicatively incompetent. This is a phenomenon known as
structure speech (Bourke, 2005, p.86). A phenomenon that explains why a lot of PhDs in Mexico can
read very well and even write articles in English, but they hardly can handle a fluent conversation.

Real communication is about feelings, environment, mood, events, and many details we can summarize
as context. So, the grammar we teach needs to be lectured in order to guide our students
communication needs. It is valid even to modify certain rule if it is necessary. This process is defined as
pedagogical grammar: the types of grammatical analysis and instruction designed for the needs of
second language students (Odlin, 1994, p.1)5. Although it is clear grammar structures are useful for L2

3 Borg, S. (1999). Teachers' theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53(3), 157-167.

4 Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5 Odlin, T. (Ed.). (1994). Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
learning, they have to be explained strategically, even simplified for the sake of our students effective
communication.