Giulia

Borelli, 2015

UNDERSTANDING CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING IN GRAMMAR TEACHING.

Theoretical background and practical applications.

The present study aims at investigating the role of consciousness-raising (C-R) in grammar teaching.
First, we will sketch out a historical picture of the development of teaching methodologies in the
field of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Next, we will set C-R within a theoretical framework with
reference to three main authors: William E. Rutherford, Richard W. Schmidt, and Rod Ellis. Ellis’
research is also followed up in its further development and an example of C-R task is provided.
Finally, we will propose a summary which reappraises those theories in the light of some key
principles that have informed C-R grammar teaching options, and might be the basis for a principled
approach to grammar teaching.

Consciousness-raising is a core issue in the research field of second language acquisition (SLA)
wherein the term second language (L2) refers to “any language acquired by a person in addition to
their mother tongue” (Cook, 2008: 12). Talking about consciousness-raising we refer to an inductive
approach to grammar teaching. It was defined within the field of SLA research at the beginning of the
1970s as a ‘facilitator’ of language learning. According to SLA-informed language pedagogy,
grammatical forms encode meanings and, thus, they should be acquired with the meanings they
realize. C-R allows this kind of acquisition because it requires learners to notice grammatical aspects
of the target language in context and to analyse them in order to make new form-meaning relations.
It does not put pressure on learners for immediate production, but rather, it raises learners’
awareness of the linguistic choices available to them to use the language accurately. Learners are
asked to reflect on what they are doing with the language and over time they will develop an
analytical method to approach the learning of a second language which will support their language
acquisition both inside and outside the classroom.

C-R proponents support the assumption that it is worth spending precious instructional time on
developing explicit knowledge of the target language because this knowledge will have a beneficial, if
delayed, effect on second language proficiency. Indeed, it has been shown that explicit knowledge
may assist the processes responsible for the development of implicit, or practical, knowledge of the
L2.

1
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

1 THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING

In order to investigate the development of consciousness-raising in the field of second language

teaching, we need to understand the reasons behind the renewed interest in grammatical
consciousness-raising from the 1980s; thus, we address the issue from a historical perspective. We
follow the synoptic overview of historical development in English as a Foreign Language teaching
methodology proposed by Howatt and Smith (2014). This overview is based on periods rather than
methods. It presents a division into four periods of activity in the field of language teaching over the
past 250 years while reminding us that we cannot make a clear-cut distinction between those
periods since one period moves to the next (Howatt & Smith, 2014).

The first period outlined is the ‘Classical Period’ (1750-1880). During the ‘Classical Period’, language
teaching considered grammatical focus a sufficient condition for successful language learning. The
principal aim of most second language teaching was typically literary due to the strong influence of
the way of teaching Latin and Greek. It mainly consisted of providing learners with both grammar
rules and vocabulary lists with an emphasis on exceptions, and asking them to do practice exercises
consisting of sentences for translation (Rutherford, 1987; Howatt & Smith, 2014). Learning a second
language mainly meant learning its grammar, or internalizing sets of entities, in the same way as one
learns their mother tongue, and “language skill was equated with ability to conjugate and decline”
(Kelly, 1969; cited in Rutherford, 1987: 29).

The following ‘Reform Period’ (1880-1920) was dominated by “the need to promote the teaching of
the spoken language” (Howatt & Smith, 2014: 81) and highly influenced by the new science of
phonetics. There were two stories of reform: the ‘Reform Methods’, later named ‘Direct Methods’;
and the ‘Natural Methods’. The former focused on teaching in secondary schools and understood the
spoken language as the spoken version of a written text. By contrast, the latter began in private
language schools for adults in the United States and focused on teaching conversation; besides, it
recognized no distinction between the ways in which first and second languages were learnt.
However, both methods viewed language learning as a form of behaviour and conceived grammar as
a tool for language learning rather than its object (Rutherford, 1987; Howatt & Smith, 2014).

During the third period, also called the ‘Scientific Period’ (1920-60)1, language teaching theorists
were concerned with placing linguistic pedagogy on a scientific basis through collaboration with the
new social sciences: linguistics and, particularly, psychology. Grammar was mainly seen as the object

1
Within Howatt and Smith’s article, the ‘Scientific Period’ has its ending in 1970. However, I have indicated the
1960 as period of transition because of the early communicative studies on comprehension-based instruction
of Asher and Newmark, which I sketch out below.

2
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

of language learning rather than its tool and “key features for all good teaching practice were
considered to be the use of drills and exercises aimed explicitly at the formation of correct habits in
the production of grammatical structures which had themselves been scientifically selected” (Howatt
& Smith, 2014: 85). Two chief methods in this period were the ‘Situational Approach’, which spread
in the UK, and the ‘Audiolingual Method’, developed in the US. The former provides meaningful
contexts for drill work: the teacher invents an imaginary classroom situation – for example, the
‘situation’ of opening a window – and conveys contrasting meanings of a verb form – I’m going to
open the window... I’m opening the window... – with all the appropriate moves. The ‘Audiolingual
Method’ is very similar to the ‘Situational Approach’ apart from the lack of meaning-focus relation
(Howatt & Smith, 2014).

The fourth period is the ‘Communicative Period’ (1960-2000+). Thanks to SLA research, the
acquisition of first and second language began to be considered as distinct processes and
approached as such. The aims and priorities of language teaching shifted on to the learner and on to
learning for ‘real-life’ communication; so the new approach made considerable use of unfocused
instruction which caters for incidental language learning, involving communication activities such as
role-playing, improvisation, and cooperative problem-solving (Howatt & Smith, 2014; Ellis & Shintani,
2014). Learners’ attention was drawn to comprehension and grammar was considered a tool for
communication (Rutherford, 1987). In the 1960s, within the framework of comprehension-based
instruction, Asher developed a method called Total Physical Response (TPR). His aim was to use
listening comprehension as a means for teaching the linguistic properties – mainly grammatical but
also lexical – of the target language (Ellis & Shintani, 2014). Although this method anticipated some
aspects of the communicative approaches to second language teaching, it still conceived the
language from a structuralist perspective. In 1966, Newmark provided a theoretical boost for this
kind of instruction stating that “L2 learning would proceed more smoothly if teachers stopped trying
to ‘interfere’ in the learning process” (Ellis & Shintani, 2014: 118). During the 1970s and the early
1980s, SLA researchers still showed great interest in pedagogical theories that emphasized the need
to assist learners to learn ‘naturally’, or ‘incidentally’. Studies on Universal Grammar and Krashen’s
‘non-interface position’ support the idea that providing learners with meaningful, or comprehensible,
input and creating opportunities for natural language use will enable them to learn implicitly and
incidentally. Focused instruction which caters to intentional language learning is not thought to be
necessary. The outcome of this approach was that learners were often able to communicate, even
fluently, but they did lack accuracy (Ellis & Shintani, 2014).

In the second half of the 1980s, “the advocacy of comprehension-based instruction once again
addressed the teaching of specific linguistic, or grammatical, features” (Ellis & Shintani, 2014: 119)

3
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

and different SLA researchers began to focus on the same issue: how learners can develop
grammatical accuracy of their ways of expression while maintaining their communicative
competence. They renewed their interest in grammar instruction and they began to combine
comprehension-based instruction with consciousness-raising in order to have grammar in the service
of language learning (Rutherford, 1987).

We move on to provide a theoretical background to C-R outlining the research of two main authors
in this field: William E. Rutherford and Rod Ellis. First, we will sketch out their C-R theories; second,
we will look at the application of those theories in SLA-informed grammar teaching. We will also
mention Schmidt’s research on the role of consciousness because it represents a theoretical
grounding for these research approaches which, within the ‘Communicative Period’, view the
conscious study of grammar as a necessary condition for language learning.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING

Rutherford and Ellis are among the SLA researchers who address the question of how they could help
learners to develop grammatical accuracy within a communicative approach. They agree on the
assumption that “language teaching should have as one of its components the need to raise in some
way the learner’s consciousness of aspects of grammatical structure of the language he is learning”
(Rutherford, 1987: 27) taking into account the communicative and comprehension-based approach
to language teaching of that period.

Before sketching out both Rutherford’s and Ellis’s approaches to grammar teaching, we need to
frame consciousness-raising in the field of SLA.

Rutherford, together with Sharwood-Smith, introduced the term consciousness-raising into the field
of SLA in 1985. He refers to learners developing a certain awareness of a particular aspect of
language (Bellalem, 2010), and suggests that drawing their attention to formal properties of
language does facilitate language acquisition (Schmidt, 1990). Grammatical C-R is seen as a facilitator
of language learning, that is, it helps the learner to progress from the known to the unknown
(Rutherford, 1987). It aims to point out features of the target-language in order that learners can
make new form-function connections exploiting what they already know; further, it enables learners
to abandon old hypotheses about the target-language in favour of new ones. As a result, learners will
comprehend the semantic value of grammar.

4
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

2.1 The role of consciousness

Rutherford and Sharwood-Smith’s early theories have paved the way for further research on the role
of consciousness in second language learning. Richard Schmidt (1988), who bases his studies on
psychological research, claims that SLA has underestimated the role of consciousness in language
learning. He states that previous research in the field of language acquisition has indeed undervalued
the role of consciousness. The basic behaviourist position, for example, is that consciousness plays
no causal role in human life; moreover, Chomsky advances the view that “conscious states and
processes are simply less significant and less interesting than unconscious phenomena”; and others
such as Krashen “firmly believe that language learning is essentially unconscious” (Schmidt, 1990:
129-130). Nevertheless, he asserts that “there are many who believe that conscious understanding of
the target language system is necessary if learners are to produce correct forms and use them
appropriately” (Schmidt, 1990: 129) and thus the time may be right for reconsideration of the role of
consciousness in language learning.

Schmidt distinguishes several senses of ‘consciousness’, two of which are particularly pertinent to
the present discussion: consciousness as awareness and consciousness as control (Schmidt, 1990).

2.1.1 Consciousness as awareness: The two terms ‘consciousness’ and ‘awareness’ are
commonly considered equivalent. Schmidt identifies two main levels of awareness among many:
noticing and understanding. At the level of ‘noticing’, or focal awareness, the learner pays attention
to a linguistic feature in the input. Accordingly, promoting noticing of a new linguistic item is a
necessary condition to fulfil the first acquisition process, that is, to convert input, or what learners
are exposed to, into intake, or what is noticed. However, noticing is not enough for learning: “forms
need to be processed sufficiently deeply to ensure retention” (Schmidt, 1990: 10) and attention to
meaning is crucial at this stage. Indeed, VanPatten (1984) assumes that learners “can acquire forms
only when processing for meaning is automatic and freed resources can be devoted to
communicatively less informative aspects of input” (Schmidt, 1990: 16). As a result, according to the
later termed Input Processing Theory (VanPatten, 1996), it is maintained that the input should be
contrived in order to allow learners to shift their attention from meaning to form, processing those
L2 aspects which they would not have noticed otherwise.

At the level of ‘understanding’, then, the learner reflects on what has been noticed and attempts to
comprehend its meaning. In other words, “learners need to recognize that the forms they have
attended to encode particular grammatical meanings” (Batstone & Ellis, 2009: 198). This may occur
through activities that guide learners to construct an explicit rule to account for the form-meaning
relation. Activities of this kind have been referred to as consciousness-raising tasks and they will be
detailed below.

5
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

2.1.2 Consciousness as control: Consciousness here is identified as a ‘supervisory attentional

system’, or monitor. In other words, learners “utilize their explicit knowledge of the L2 grammar to
edit their production for accuracy and appropriateness” (Batstone & Ellis, 2009: 198-199). This is
indeed the role conferred to consciousness by Krashen who calls ‘monitor’ the ‘learned knowledge’
within his Monitor Theory. The primary function of this knowledge is to edit acquired knowledge
during language production when learners have sufficient time to focus on accuracy. However, since
these kinds of situations are negligible in overall language use, Krashen suggests that it is not worth
spending precious instructional time on developing learned knowledge (VanPatten & Williams,
2007).

At this point, it should have become clear that Rutherford, Schmidt and, later, Ellis do not subscribe
to this position. In their opinion it is worth spending precious instructional time on developing
conscious knowledge because this knowledge will have a beneficial, if delayed, effect on second
language proficiency.

2.2 Implications for grammar instruction

Schmidt’s analysis has provided a theoretical grounding for those researchers who view the
conscious study of grammar as a necessary condition for language learning. Following his path,
further SLA researchers do not support the traditional approach to grammar instruction, which
teaches grammar forms in isolation from their meaning using mainly production activities, but rather,
they centre on consciousness-raising activities to teach grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Ellis, for
example, argues against the traditional idea that ‘practice makes perfect’ suggesting that practice
does not necessarily contribute to the autonomous ability to use the target structure in spontaneous
communication (Nitta & Gardner, 2005). Instead, he argues in favour of using different
consciousness-raising activities that do not put pressure on learners for immediate production, but
rather aim at the noticing and the understanding of grammatical features (Bellalem, 2010).

The following is the model that metaphorically represents the L2 acquisition process:

Input à Intake à Developing System à Output à Feedback

C-R works at the first three stages of the acquisition process, aiming at the development of explicit
knowledge. In order to turn intake into a system, learners need to develop both implicit knowledge
through the process of noticing and explicit knowledge through the process of understanding.
Through a C-R approach to language teaching, teachers help students to notice the input; they have
the chance to connect particular forms with particular meanings during comprehension, and this will
promote the accommodation of intake and the restructuring of the developing linguistic system
(Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Generally speaking, C-R does not provide practice; hence it does not involve

6
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

output. Although some C-R activities require a minimal production, they should be use in conjunction
with other teaching approaches that focus on language use such as the communicative approach.

To sum up, if we look at the assumptions of both Rutherford and Ellis, which gain theoretical support
from Schmidt’s work, we can highlight the predominant features included in a C-R approach to
grammatical instruction (Macedo, 1999):

• Specific grammar rules, patterns, and constructions are isolated.

• Learners are given data which leads them to pay attention to the specific grammar
features at issue (noticing).
• Learners must reflect on what has been noticed and attempt to account for form-
meaning relations (understanding).
• Lack of understanding prompts clarifications in the form of explicit explanation and/or
data (monitoring).
• Learners might be expected to formulate either rules which describe the target feature
or sentences which include the target feature (minimal production).

3 CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING OPTIONS

As we have already mentioned, starting from the 1980s SLA researchers were dealing with the
matter of raising learners’ grammatical consciousness in order to help them to produce more
accurate utterances. Rutherford and Ellis are among the first researchers who theorise and practice a
C-R approach to language teaching. Although both Rutherford and Ellis investigate grammar for
comprehension, they have a slightly different goal. Ellis considers grammatical consciousness–raising
as a tool for comprehending how different forms convey different meanings; it is done at the input
level and production is not expected, hence it has a receptive goal. On the other hand, Rutherford
expects learners to produce accurate sentences. He also considers grammatical consciousness–
raising as a tool for comprehending the semantic value of grammar – learners understand that
grammar is able to convey meaning that words alone are not able to convey. The main goal is to get
a more meaningful production, although practice is not involved.

This slight difference will lead to two lines of research. Ellis’ study will lead to input-processing
theories whereas Rutherford’s study will be taken as a basis for Academic Writing research in the US,
which studies the role of grammar in writing.

7
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

3.1 William E. Rutherford: second language grammaticization

Rutherford sees consciousness-raising as an aid to interlanguage development through the
attainment of second language grammaticization.

Grammaticization denotes “a developmental phenomenon that can be found in a number of

different language realms: language history, dialectology, pidgin-creole, L1 acquisition, and of course
L2 acquisition” (Rutherford, 1987: 55). For the purpose of the present discussion, we understand
grammaticization as a development in the metamorphosis of L2 interlanguage. That is, learners in
the course of time develop a series of overlapping mental grammars to interpret and produce
utterances (Ellis, 2008); within each mental grammar, lexical items “acquire a new status as
grammatical, morphosyntactic forms, and in the process come to code relations that either were not
coded before or were coded differently” (Traugott & König, 1991). Since no two languages reveal
either the same range or the same depth of grammaticization, C-R procedures are peculiar for the
learning of any one language. Having English as second language at issue, five main related aspects of
English grammaticization may be identified:

• Topic and subject. The learner’s reanalysis, reinterpretation, and reorganization of early
‘topic-comment’ as later ‘subject-predicate’, and the grammatical choices that this will
trigger.
• Word order. The learning of functions of word order as a means for expressing
grammatical relations, and the acquisition of grammatical devices (e.g. movement rules)
for maintaining that order.
• Syntactic-semantic distance. The learner’s growing understanding of the special
grammatical resources for relating grammatical form to meaning where there is not
often so close linear correspondence between the two.
• Noun-to-verb ratio. The increasing capacity of the learner to realize grammatically the
full set of arguments for any given verb and to make use of verbs that have larger sets.
The concomitant of this is the learner’s growing awareness of the formal distinctions
among major lexical categories and their ability to exploit these distinctions (e.g. turn
verbs into nouns and clauses into noun-phrases) for the ‘compression’ of larger amounts
of propositional content into smaller space sentence space.
• Coordination and subordination. The learner’s progress in abandoning early coordinate-
structure arrangements of information for target-language utilization of subordination
and the major grammatical resources that this requires.

(Rutherford, 1987: 53-54)

8
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

3.1.1 ‘Instruments’ of consciousness-raising

Rutherford suggests some consciousness-raising ‘instruments’ that may contribute to learners’
interlanguage development; that is, to the development of the five aspects of English
grammaticization. He also suggests a division between instruments “that ask learners for a judgment
or discrimination of some kind and those that pose a task to be performed or a problem to be
solved” (Rutherford, 1987: 160); the latter commonly require a minimal production. We need to bear
in mind that the main goal is having learners produce meaningful and accurate utterances.

Judgment: The ‘judgment’ instrument, or operation, may be brought into play for deciding on the
appropriateness of conversational responses, or for choosing the grammaticality of sentence word-
order. For example, learners may be asked to identify the ‘error’ and make the ‘correction’ with
reference to English SVO grammatical word-order:

1. In Lake Maracaibo was discovered the oil.

2. After a few minutes the guests arrived.
3. In my country does not appear to exist any constraint on women’s rights. etc.
(Rutherford, 1987: 161)

Discrimination: Discrimination may be used in the realm of semantic interpretation for the
understanding of nominalization, for example; for inducing an appropriate lexical choice from among
a group of terms with shared semantic features but requiring different grammatical context
(Rutherford, 1987: 162); or for discourse appropriateness, asking the learner to meet the discourse
given/new requirements. For example, if we are focusing on colligation properties of lexis, we can
choose vocabulary sharing the semantic feature of ‘denial’:

Although the province of Quebec has resisted efforts

avoid avoided
deny denied
to deprive it of its French-speaking deprived
forbid identity no one can say that he is forbidden
keep kept
prevent prevented
prohibit prohibited

avoid
deny
to speak English. That is, deprive
in making French the official forbid
language of Quebec, the laws still do not keep anyone from speaking
prevent whatever language
prohibit he chooses.
(Rutherford, 1987: 162)

9
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

Discernment: Discernment mainly deals with word-order relationships and their effect, through
movement rules, upon semantic interpretation; for example, the grammatical relations of infinitival
relative clauses or the referential relations serving cohesion. The latter could be verified asking
learners to verbally identify in a given text what the highlighted referents correspond to, as in the
following example:
After they saved a little money, Howard and Ellen wanted to buy a house. So they did. The
floor plan was almost exactly the same as that of Ellen’s parents’ home, where she reared.
Buying it was not easy for the young couple, but Ellen was determined to go through with it.
She could not stand living in their small apartment any longer. [...]
(Rutherford, 1987: 164)

Task completion and problem solving: These C-R tasks ask learners to perform somehow or to
solve a problem in order to attempt to produce accurate sentences. They work, for example, upon
‘prepositional embedding of sentential elements’ such as relativization and complementation. Also,
the learner may need to focus on “the preservation of semantic relations through grammatical
refraction . . . [in order to] form the effected object construction and whatever grammatical changes
are triggered thereby” (Rutherford, 1987: 166). Then, the learner may be tested on their ability to
handle attenuated form-meaning relationship. These assumptions are behind a kind of task in which
learners, for example, supply a natural clause-final verb whose object has been fronted in the course
of relativization:

1. [a shelf] higher than I could (reach)

2. [coffee] hotter than I could . . .
3. [a package] larger than I could . . .
4. [a meeting] earlier than I could . . .
etc.
(Rutherford, 1987: 166)

Last, the most significant example of task performance and grammatical problem solving is the one
referring to the ‘propositional cluster principle’.

Propositional cluster principle: A powerful means for enabling the learner to bring about the
above mentioned grammaticization processes has been represented by tasks that refer to the
‘propositional cluster principle’. Learners are provided with a skeletal sentence consisting of an
unmarked verb and its associated noun-phrases – namely, a propositional cluster – and they are
asked to arrange the cluster into a well-formed sentence within the discourse context indicated
(Rutherford, 1987: 59-60). For example:

1a. On stage appeared a man and a child.

b. sing – child – song
2a. Last on the programme were a song and a piano piece.
b. sing – child – song

10
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

The context of (1b) would lead to the cluster ‘The child sang a song’; that of (2b) would lead to the
cluster ‘The song was sung by a child’ (Rutherford, 1987: 167).

The learners have the opportunity to raise their consciousness about “the interrelationship of
grammar, semantics, and discourse within a single set of operations” (Rutherford, 1987: 73). In the
example proposed, “context has determined the arrangement of the verb and its arguments
(agentive, objective), and these two factors in turn have determined the verb form (passive or active)
and the status of the assigned articles (definite or indefinite)” (Rutherford, 1987: 167).

We can look at other examples with reference to other grammaticization phenomena. Coordination
and subordination: The activity of rendering into well-formed sentences propositional clusters
containing embedded material to be realized as relative clauses is aimed at steering the learner to
handle syntactic subordination (Rutherford, 1987: 60-61). For example, all of (1b) can be embedded
as object of the verb ‘want’ (i.e. ‘The child wanted to sing a song’), sketched as:

1c. want – child – [sing – child - song]

Or ‘child’ in (2b) can occur as head of a relative clause (e.g. ‘The child who looked scared sang a
song’), sketched as:

2c. sing – child [look scared - child] – song

(Rutherford, 1987: 168)
Topic and subject: The act of conferring ‘subjecthood’ upon a designed noun-phrase triggers the
morphological making of subject-verb agreement and leads learners to understand the grammatical
properties that distinguish subject from topic (Rutherford, 1987: 60).

Word order: The ‘propositional cluster principle’ could also support a natural raising-to-
consciousness of aspects of linear ordering of elements to connect semantic and discourse
requirements and lead to “learner sensitivity to the use of English basic word order for the
expression of grammatical rather than semantic relations” (Rutherford, 1987: 98). For example:

Below is a photograph of the sun taken with a special telescope.

call – dark patches on sun – sunspots

The learner is expected to write: ‘Below is a photograph of the sun taken with a special telescope.
The dark patches on it are called sunspots.’ Their task is “(1) to decide which of two available noun-
phrases is to become subject of ‘call’ and place it in that position; (2) mark ‘call’ as passive since the
subject now bears the objective relation to ‘call’; (3) distinguish given/new by means of appropriate

11
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

choice of determiners – the dark patches ... ∅sunspots; (4) replace repeated ‘sun’ with referential
‘it’; and (5) adjust for subject-verb agreement” (Rutherford, 1987: 99).

It turns out that the propositional cluster principle should be combined with the principle of
‘cohesion’ – that is, “what ties sentences together such that we perceive them collectively as
constituting a single text” (Rutherford, 1987: 91) – in order to raise learner consciousness of
grammatical constituent relations. C-R activities may be used to notice constituent referential
relationships of hyponymy, of contrast, of contradiction and so on and so forth. Also, they arise quite
naturally where constituent relations bear upon grammaticization and the lexicon; for example, “the
kinds of grammatical shift that accompany the conversion of lexicon from a major category (e.g.
verb) to another (e.g. noun)” (Rutherford, 1987: 101).

3.2 Rod Ellis: consciousness – raising tasks for explicit knowledge

When Ellis, together with Rutherford, began to stress the importance of teaching grammar within a
communicative framework in the late 1980s and early 1990s, he conceived consciousness-raising as a
tool for comprehending and helping learners to produce more accurate utterances. On the one hand,
his studies on input noticing have led to input-processing research mainly conducted by VanPatten
(1996). VanPatten’s Input Processing Theory states that acquisition cannot happen if comprehension
does not occur; thus, it seeks to explain why learners process input as they do and why they make
specific form-meaning connections (VanPatten &Williams, 2007).

On the other hand, Ellis has followed up his research on how to raise learners’ consciousness of
target features in order to gain proficiency in the use of the L2. He subscribes to the ‘weak-interface
position’ in opposition to Krashen’s ‘non-interface position’, which undervalues the role of explicit
knowledge in the acquisition process, and the ‘strong-interface position’, which states that ‘practice
makes perfect’. Regarding the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, he rather states
that “explicit knowledge can assist the processes responsible for the development of implicit
knowledge” (Ellis, 1994; cited in Ellis, 2012: 281). Accordingly, “consciousness-raising as a
methodological option seeks to develop explicit L2 knowledge on the ground that, although this may
not be available for immediate use in communication, it will facilitate noticing and noticing-the-gap
and so lead to the development of implicit knowledge needed for communication” (Ellis, 2012: 281).
Since explicit knowledge is so important in the process of second language acquisition, Ellis
reconsiders its role conceiving grammar as an object to be studied and mastered. As a result, he goes
further in his study on consciousness-raising and proposes another type of task that can be used to
inductively present a new grammatical structure: consciousness-raising tasks. They ask learners to

12
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

develop explicit knowledge about the target language, including some metalanguage; in other words,
learners could be asked to verbalize their explicit knowledge (Nitta & Gardner, 2005; Ellis, 2012,
2014).

C-R tasks expose learners to only some subset of the target language and asked them to notice it in
the input. What changes is the goal of the tasks: grammatical C-R tasks aims at explicit knowledge,
not only at comprehension of form/meaning relations. Learners should learn to form hypotheses and
draw meaningful generalizations from the subset of grammatical properties provided in order to be
aware of the linguistic choices available to them to successfully communicate (Rutherford, 1987;
Larsen-Freeman, 2003). The learning that results will be intentional, “although there is always the
possibility that some incidental acquisition of features that were not the explicit target of a lesson
will occur” (Ellis, 2012: 273).

It is important to recognize that the effect of C-R tasks may vary according to the learnability of the
target structure at issue. Moreover, it might be due to two factors: first, the extent to which explicit
knowledge of the target features is already established prior to the instruction and, second, the
availability of samples of the target features in the input that learners are exposed to subsequent to
the instruction. Thus, we should emphasize the fact that C-R tasks should also be use in conjunction
with both listening and communicative activities that focus on language use.

3.2.1 Designing consciousness-raising tasks

A consciousness-raising task can be defined as follow:

A C-R task is a pedagogic activity where the learners are provided with L2 data in some form
and are required to perform some operations on or with it, the purpose of which is to arrive at
an explicit understanding of some linguistic property or properties of the target language.
(Ellis, 1997: 160)

As mentioned above, the task content is the target structure itself and its aim is to call learners’
attention to a specific grammatical feature, building a conscious representation of it, and “thereby
facilitating subsequent learner noticing of the features in communicative input” (Fotos, 1994: 326).
Thus, this kind of task is not designed either to elicit learner production or to lead directly to correct
and spontaneous use of the target structure in conversation but rather, it is designed to contribute to
interlanguage development through explicit learning.

The following are the main features of a consciousness-raising task:

• Specific grammatical focus

• Data

13
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

• Operations
• Optional verbalization of a generalization or ‘rule’
• Optional checking understanding
• Further data

To devise a C-R task, data and operations to be performed on the data are to be chosen among a
range of options. Data options include the following:

• Authentic vs. contrived - i.e. whether or not the data consist of text prepared by native
speakers for other native speakers for some purpose other than language teaching.
• Oral vs. written - i.e. whether the data represent spoken or written language. Spoken
language data can be made available to the learner in the form of recording, or, more likely,
by means of transcription.
• Discrete sentences vs. continuous text - i.e. whether the data consist of a series of
disconnected sentences or continuous discourse.
• Well-formed vs. deviant - i.e. whether the data conform to the norms of the target variety or
whether they include deviations from these norms, as, for example, in grammaticality
judgement tasks.
• Gap vs. non-gap - i.e. whether the data are distributed among the learners in such a way that
the information contained in the data has to be shared, or whether each learner has access
to all the data.

The operation options include the following:

• Identification – i.e. the learners are invited to signal awareness of a specific feature in the
data by, for example, underlying it.
• Judgment – i.e. the learners are invited to judge the correctness or appropriateness of
features in the data.
• Completion – i.e. the learners are invited to complete a text, for example, by filling in blanks
as in a cloze passage or by selecting from choices supplied.
• Modification – i.e. the learners are invited to modify a text in some way, for example, by
replacing one item with another item, by reordering elements in the text, by inserting some
additional item into the text, or by rewriting part of it.
• Sorting – i.e. the learners are invited to classify specific items present in the data by sorting
them into defined categories.
• Matching – i.e. the learners are invited to match two sets of data according to some stated
principle.

14
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

• Rule provision – i.e. in the case of inductive tasks learners may or may not be asked to give a
rule to account for phenomena they have investigated; the rule can be presented verbally or
non-verbally.
(Ellis, 1997: 161-162)

3.2.2 An example of a consciousness-raising task

The example of C-R task we are going to present is taken from Ellis (1998: 48). It is designed to help
learners to discover when to use at, in, and on in adverbial time phrases. The data options that have
been selected are authentic, written, continuous text, well-formed, and non-gap. The principal
operations are those of identification, sorting, and rule provision.

Activity 1: Read to notice. Learners are asked to read through the text and underline the time
expressions.

I made an appointment to see Mr. Bean at 3 o’clock on Tuesday the 11th of February to
discuss my application for a job. Unfortunately, he was involved in a car accident in the
morning and rang to cancel the appointment. I made another appointment to see him at 10
o’clock on Friday the 21st of February. However, when I got to his office, his secretary told me
that his wife had died at 2 o’clock in the night and that he was not coming into the office that
day. She suggested I reschedule for sometime in March. So I made a third appointment to see
Mr. Bean at 1 o’clock on Monday the 10th of March. This time I actually got to see him.
However, he informed me that they had now filled all the vacancies and suggested I contact
him again in 1998. I assured him that he would not be seeing me in either this or the next
century.

Activity 2: Understanding the grammar point. Learners are asked to fill in a table with the time
phrases that they have underlined in the text.

at in on

at 3 o’clock

Activity 3: Verbalization. Learners are to make up a rule to explain when to use at, in, and on in time
expressions.

It is worth noticing that Ellis has moved on from using sentences as input in interpretation tasks to
adopting authentic or natural data, such as oral texts and dialogues, when designing C-R tasks.

15
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

The other example of C-R we are going to present is taken from a lecture given by Ellis at the Miyagi
University of Education in Japan in December 2013; the lecture was about “Implicit and Explicit
Knowledge: Using Consciousness-raising Tasks”2. The C-R task we have chosen aims at raising
consciousness about the use of ‘wish’ with reference to the future, the present, and the past. The
data options that have been selected are contrived, written, discrete sentences, well-formed, and
non-gap. The principal operations are those of sorting, matching, and rule provision.

Activity 1: Learners are asked to read a list of sentences wherein the subordinate clauses after the
verb ‘wish’ have been enhanced through bolding. They need to sort whether the sentences in bold
refer to the future, the present, or the past, and fill in a table writing the sentences in the correct
column. We are reporting some sentences of the task:

1. He wishes he earned more money.

2. She wishes she had married him.
3. They wish he would stop smoking.
4. We wish it hadn’t rained.
5. She wishes she could go to America.

Future Present Past
He wishes he earned more
money

Activity 2: Learners are asked to complete the rule in order to understand the grammar point.

• The verb to wish is followed by a verb in the _____ when we want to talk about
situations in the present that we are not happy about but cannot change.
• When we want to talk about situations in the past that we are not happy about or
actions that we regret, the verb wish is followed by a verb in the ______.
• When we want to talk about situations we are not happy about and where we want
someone else to change them, we use wish followed by ____ + _____.

Activity 3: Learners are asked to use the rules to correct the sentences provided.

1. She wishes she is more beautiful but she isn't.

2. He wishes he did not lie but he did.
3. I wish he goes away but he won’t.

2
http://pseec.miyakyo-u.ac.jp/2013.12RodEllisConsciousness-
raising%20tasks%20for%20grammar%20teaching.pdf

16
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

5 CONCLUSION

Through our attempt to understand the development of consciousness-raising in the field of second
language teaching, we have become familiar with the C-R options proposed by two SLA researchers,
Rutherford and Ellis. They have shown us that this methodology is able to provide a practical
approach to meeting the needs of second language grammar teaching since it raises learners’
awareness of aspects of grammatical target structures. We will now review what has been said so far
vis-à-vis some principles which have informed both Rutherford and Ellis’ SLA research.

The basic principle both researchers seem to have referred to is that “Effective grammar instruction
must complement the processes of L2 acquisition” (Batstone & Ellis, 2009: 195). This entails that the
goal of grammar instruction should be “to assist learners to acquire new form-meaning mappings
and to integrate these into their existing form-meaning system” (Batstone & Ellis, 2009: 203). This
principle is the basis for other three principles: the Given-to-New principle, the Awareness principle,
and the real-operating conditions principle.

We find both the Given-to-New principle and the Awareness principle within the C-R options
analysed above.

The Awareness principle clearly informs Rutherford and Ellis’ research on C-R. It affirms the
importance of consciousness in language learning on the basis of Schmidt’s distinction between
noticing, understanding, and monitoring. Indeed, the consciousness-raising activities designed by the
two SLA authors are directed at “making learners aware of how a particular meaning is encoded by a
particular grammatical form” (Batstone & Ellis, 2009: 197). In the early phase of their works, this is
done, first, at the level of ‘noticing’ which leads learners to pay ‘conscious attention’ to specific
grammatical forms in the input; second, at the level of ‘understanding’ wherein learners discover the
form-meaning connection. In the second phase of Ellis’ work, then, the level of ‘monitoring’ is also
implemented. Learners are generally asked to verbalize their explicit knowledge and are supposed to
use this consciousness of the L2 “to edit their production for accuracy and appropriateness”
(Batstone & Ellis, 2009: 199).

The Given-To-New principle also informs the C-R options of the two SLA researchers but we can
highlight some differences in the way they have applied it.

Rutherford (1987) talks about the Given-to-New principle while discussing grammar in relation to
discourse requirements. He focuses on language use and grammatical processes serving discourse
cohesion; as a result, his study has strongly influenced the field of discourse analysis. According to his
view, the principle refers to language processing possible through the arrangement of information in

17
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

linear order. Learners can notice and link what they are hearing or seeing in a text for the first time
to something else with which they are already familiar. Thus, “smoothly flowing discourse is
characterized among other things by the extent to which new and given form a ‘chain’. The simplest
chain is created across sentence boundaries when what is introduced in one sentence as new starts
the next sentence as given” (Rutherford, 1987: 70).

On the other hand, Ellis refers to the Given-to-New principle as a way to help learners to make new
form-meaning connections. Learners are engaged with relevant meaning which they already know,
and asked to use this meaning as a basis for making new links into the grammar of the L2. In other
words, learners may see how a form they have already used in relation to a particular meaning can
also be used to indicate another meaning. This generally implies that task materials should be
contrived in order to provide redundant linguistic cues (Batstone & Ellis, 2009).

The third principle we have mentioned is the real-operating conditions principle. This is not included
in the early Rutherford’s C-R option for grammar teaching but represents the kind of ‘external’
support which should be given to consciousness-raising. Researchers such as Ellis have become
aware of the fact that C-R does not mean ‘language teaching’ but is only one of the options among
many which can contribute to language teaching, and in particular to grammar teaching. As a result,
C-R needs to be used in conjunction with other SLA-informed teaching options. The aim of the real-
operating condition principle, thus, is to ensure that learners have the opportunity to experience
target features in real-life communicative situations; that is, learners should be engaged in tasks
which make essential, useful, or natural the use of the target structures while they are
communicating (Batstone & Ellis, 2009).

To conclude, these principles have informed many authors in the field of second language acquisition
research. We have sketched them out referring to Rutherford and Ellis’ consciousness-raising
grammar teaching options and taking into account temporal and theoretical developments of Ellis’
research. We also need to point out that Batstone and Ellis (2009) have recently proposed a
‘principled approach’ to second language teaching based on these principles. Instead of proposing a
specific sequence of types of activities that can make up a grammar lesson, they identify those three
principles as a guide for the selection of instructional procedures which will lead learners to acquire
new form-function mappings (Batstone and Ellis, 2009).

18
 Giulia Borelli, 2015

REFERENCES

− Batstone, R. and R. Ellis. 2009. Principled Grammar Teaching. System 37: 194-204
− Bellalem, F. 2010. Grammar Consciousness-Raising Activities in Teacher Education. King
Saud University: Working Papers
− Ellis, R. 1994. Implicit/Explicit knowledge and Language Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28,
No. 1: 166-172
− Ellis, R. 1997. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP
− Ellis, R. 1998. Teaching and Research: Options in Grammar Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.
32, No. 1: 39-60
− Ellis, R. 2012. Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. London: Wiley-
Blackwell
− Ellis, R. and N. Shintani. 2014. Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language
Acquisition Research. London: Routledge
− Fotos, S. 1994. Integrating Grammar Instruction and Communicative Language Use Through
Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2
− Howatt, A. P. R. and R. Smith. 2014. The Teaching of English as a Foreign Language, from a
British and European Perspective. Language and History, Vol. 57, No. 1: 75-95
− Larsen-Freeman, D. 2003. Teaching Language from Grammar to Grammaring. Boston:
Heinle
− Nitta, R. & S. Gardner. 2005. Consciousness-Raising and Practice in ELT Coursebooks. ELT
Journal, Vol. 59, No. 1
− Rutherford, W. 1987. Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London:
Longman
− Schmidt, R. 1990. The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 11, No. 2
− VanPatten, B. & J. Williams (eds.). 2007. Theories in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum

19