The "Teachability" of Grammar in University English Classes-香川大学学術情報リポジトリ

(1)

The“Teachability’’ofGrammarinUniversityEnglishClasses

The仏Teachability乃ofGrammar

inUniversityEnglishClasses

英文法の教授法：その現状とあり方をめぐって GerardineMcCrohan（大学教育開発センター） PaulBatten（教育学部） SLAtheorieshavehadanextremeimpactontheteachingofgrammarinthesecondlanguage Classroom．Thesetheorieshavechangedanddevelopedoverthepastfortyyears，SWlnglngfrom BehaviorismandtheAudio−LingualMethodtoKrashen’stheoriesandthedemiseofgrammarteachingln theclassroomtomoremoderntechniquessuchasConsciousneSSRaising，DataDrivenLearn1ngandlもsk BasedLearn1ng，Wheregrammaronceagalnplaysandimportantrole．So，afterseveralyearsoutinthe COldinbothLlandL2classrooms，grammarhasonceagainbecomethesu切ectofrenewedinterestover thepastfifteenyears． Grammarbecameunfashionablefbrseveralgoodreasons，SOitwouldbeamistaketoreturnthe

teachingsty1esofthinyorfbrtyyearsago．Wehavetoexaminetheroleofgrammarinrelationtohow

languagesarelearnedifweplantomakegrammaranimportantpartyofthelanguagesyllabus．Finally，

ifwedecidedtoexplicitlyteachgrammarthenwealsohavetostudytheroleofgrammarbooksinthe

Classroom−howandiftheyshouldbeused．

Thebodyofthispaperisdividedintothreesections；

Sectiol11discussesthe downfa11traditionalL2teaching／1earning methods andthe rise ofthe

COmmunicativeapproachwithconsequentreductionofgrammarasthemainfbcusintheclassroom．The

maintheoriesexaminedareCorder’sInterlanguageTheoryandStudents’Sy11abus，Ausubel’sCognitive TheoryandKrashen’sMonitorTheory．

Section2discussesthelackofgrammarteachingintheCommunicativeApproachandthereturnto

grammartothesyllabus・NewermethodssuchasConsciousnessRaising，DataDrivenLearn1ngandTask BasedLearn1ngareeXamined．

Section3discussestherelationshipbetweenthesetheories，theteachingofgrammarandtheroleof

grammarbooksintheclassroom．

Sectionl

WhatisnowknownastheGrammarTranslationmethodoflearnlngaSeCOndlanguageseemstohave

developedoutofthepracticeofscribestranslatingmainlyreligioustextsverycarefu11y丘omonelanguage intoanotherintheMiddleAges．Asthelanguagesconcerned，（LatinandclassicalGreek），WerenOlonger

(2)

SpOkenaslingua丘ancawidelybythatstage，andduetothefactthatthegoalwasthetranslationoftexts， ultimatelytoberead，itwasamethodthatplacednofocusonspokencommunicationperse・

Inthenineteenthcentury，WhatisnowknownastheGrammarTranslationmethoddevelopedoutof

thismethodoftranslationandwasusedtoteachmodern（i・e・，SpOken）Europeanlanguages．Theemphasis WaSOnpleCebypleCe−mealgradedintroductionofselectedpointsofgrammar，Whichwerepresented inthenativelanguage，andthenpracticedbymeansoftranslationexercisesfo1lowedbycorrectionby theinstructor・ThismethodologyofgrammarinstructiondominatedthemqorityofSLAclassesinthe twentiethcentury・Onereasonalsoisthatsuchtextsorexercisesareeasyfbrteacherstomark，Whereas tasksinvoIvingcommunicativeabilityand／orcompetencerequiremuchmorefinesse． OnecriticismofthismethodwasthatitallowednoroomforanycommunicativelnPut・Conversations inthetext，aStheywere，Werelargelygeneratedtodemonstrateanarrayofgrammaticalpointsratherthan With、anyrealworldcommunicativetasksinmind・Onedoesnotneedtobeabletoaskthe’way丘omthe StationtothehotelinLatin，butinFrench，ifyougotoFrance，manyPeOPlerealized，itmaybeagood idea！

Asaresultofthiscriticism，SeCOndlanguageteachingdevelopedothermethodologleSaimedat

improvlngthislackoftraininglnrealworldlanguageskills． AsastudentofFrench，German，SpanishandJapaneseinthelate1970sandearly1980s，OneOfthe author’sclasseswereallGTMclasses・AsalearnerWhoeruoyspemicketydetai1，heerリOyedtheclasses， butalas，WaSdismayedtodiscoverhislackofrealspokenskillswhenencounteringanynativespeakers！It

WaSthistypeofexperiencethatprovedthestartingpointfbrthedevelopmentofothertheoriesofSLAand

teachingstyles． Asabaseintrainingofthegrammarofasecondlanguage，thegeneralconsensusisthatGMThasits PlaceamongtheotherSLAmethodologies，butitsoverwhelmlngCOmmandoftheBeldhas爺nished． Manytraditionalteachingmethodsarebasedonthetheorythatlearnlngdoesbecomeacquisition throughproductionandfbedback（i．e．，praCticeanderrorcorrection）．Thisbeliefwasduetothein刊uence Ofbehaviorismonsecondlanguageacquisition（SLA）． ThemqorteachingmethodthatgrewoutofbehaviorismwastheAudiolingualMethod“ALMM． ALMwasthedominantteachingmethodthroughtothe1970sandsometimesintothe1980s．ALMwas Characterizedbypractice，PreSentationandproduction，COmmOnlyrefbrredtoasPPP・TntheALMaccuracy

andconfbrmitywerevaluedabovecommunicationandcreativethinking・Thepresentationprocesswas

aimedathabitfbrmationandtherefbrelanguagewasbrokendownintornanageableparts，1argelybased

Onthenounandverbsystems・Theroleofthelearnerwastomemorizesectionsoflanguageandto

reproducethemwhenglVenthecorrectstimulation・AlthoughALMstressedhabitfbrmationthroughdrills， Substitutiontables，StruCtureddialoguesetc・，SOmeALMmaterialsdidnotcontainanyexplicittreatmentof ru1es・Themethodwascharacterizedbyover−learn1ngandthebeliefthaterrorsweretobeavoidedatall COStS． Withthedemiseofbehaviorism，ALMcameinfbrsomeveryharshcriticism，mainly什omAusubel andCorderinthelate1960sandalso丘omKrasheninthe1970sand1980s．Theseresearchersbelieved

(3)

The｝Teachability’ofGrammarinUniversityEnglishClasses

thatlanguagewasnotlearnedbyrotememorizationandthaterrorswereanimportantpartofthelanguage

learnlngPrOCeSS．

CognitiveTheorydevelopedbyDavidAusubelisbestknownfbrcontrastingroteandmeaningfu1

1earnlng．AusubeldescribedrotelearnlngaSthe“processofacqulrlngmaterialasdiscreterelatively

isolatedentitiesthatarerelatabletocognitivestructureonlylnanarbitraryandverbatimfashion，nOt

Permittingtheestablishmentof（meaningfu1）relationships”（Ausubel，1968：108）．RotelearninginvoIves

almostnoassociationwithexistingcognitivestructuresandconsequentlyiseasilyfbrgotten．Material

learnedinthisfashiondoesnotalterexistingcognltlVeStruCtureSandAusubelbelievesitdoesnotlead

toacquisitionofnewlanguage．Thiscontrastswithmeaningfu11eamlngWhichinteractsandcausessome

a4justmenttoexistingcognitivesystems．Thisaqjustmenttoexistingcognitivesystems（Subsumption Theory）isoneofthemainargumentsagainstrotelearningasameansoflanguageacquisition． Ausubelwentontodevelopatheoryofsystematicfbrgetting（Ausubel，1963）or“cognitiveprunlng” （Brown，1972）・Hearguesthatlanguagethatismeaningfu11ylearnedisfbrgottenbutthatthisfbrgetting is“reallyasecondor“obliterative”stageofsubsumptiontheory（Ausubel，1963：218），Characterizedby “memorialreductiontotheleastcommondenominator”．ThisfbrgettinglSnOtarbitrarybutsystematic andAusbel’ssolutionliesintheinitial1eammgprocess−WeShouldfavormeaningfu11earnlngOVerrOte learnlng．BythishesuggeststhattoomuchrotelearnlnglSnOtbene重cialtolanguageacquisition，rather theoppositeinfact． In1967Corderdevelopedatheorycalled“interlanguage”or“transitionalcompetence”totryto

explainstudenterrors．Interlanguagedescribesthestagewherelearnershavebecomeawareofsomepart

Ofthesystem，buthavenotyet“internalized”itwellenoughtobeabletouseitcorrectlyoraccurately．It istherefbrecounter−PrOductivetoviewerrorsasevidenceofthestudents’failuretolearnbutrathererrors PrOVideevidenceofthestudents’inte11igenceandeffbrtstouselanguagecreatively．

Cordergoesontodiscussthecyclicalnatureoflanguagelearn1ng．Manyteachersfbelthatstudents

Shouldshowsteadyprogresstowardsthenormaluseofstructure，butthishasbeenshowntobenot

true・Kellerman（1987：40）describesa“u−Shaped”1earningcurvewherestudentsinitiallyuseastructure COrreCtly（perhapsunanalyzed）thenregresstoungrammaticalusageandfina11ytonormaluseagain．The incorrectuseofthestructureisevidenceofthestudents’interlanguageastheytrytoanalyzelanguageand

relateittotheirexistingknowledge．

Theeffbctsofinterlanguagetheoryarecommonlyseenintoday’sclassrooms−mainlythereis

muchlessconcernwitherroravoidancetheninthedaysofALM，COurSeSandtextbooksaremuchmore

COnCernedwithproducingnaturalsoundingreadingandlisteningpassagesand重nallythereisastrong emphasisonexposlngStudentstolargeramountsof’real−WOrld’1anguageintheSLclassroomtoday． Corderbelievesthatlanguageacquisitionisunderpinnedbyalearners’syllabusthatfbllowsanatural Orderofprogression（simi1artoKrashen’sNaturalOrderHypothesiswhichstatesthatlanguageisacquired

innaturalorder，nOtdeterminedbylinguisticdifncultyorcomplexityandnotintheorderthatlinguistic

itemsarefbundintextbooksorgrammarbooks）・Howeverthereareanumberofproblemswithastudents’ Syllabusandnaturalorder．

(4)

First，theevidenceoftheexistenceofthissyllabusisbasedonthestudiesofmorphemesandsimple

PatternSObservedduringtheveryearlystagesoflanguagelearning（Larsen−Freeman，D．andLong， M．L．，1991）．Theseresultshavebeencriticizedmain1yduetothesmallnumberofstudies，thegrammatical itemsexaminedwerenotcommontoallstudies，andtherefbreanyclaimsconcernlngCOmmOnOrdersof naturalorderswerebasedonaverysmallportionofEnglishgrammarandalsothe“weak”natureofthe infbrentialstatisticaltextsused． Morerecentlyduringthe1980sadditionalstudiesweredone（Lightbrown1985，Pica1985）which alsosuggestthatsomeordersdoexist．Studiesintolearner’ssyllabusinotherlanguageshavealso

SuggeStedthatanaturalprogressiondoesexistandnowthatalargernumberifstudieshavebeencarried

Out，thereseemstobesometruthinthenaturalprogression，atleastintheearlystagesoflanguage learnlng． However，therearestillanumberofproblemstobeaddressed，mainlywehavenoideayetwhat

CauSeSthisnaturalorderorlnputCantriggerthesesequences．Consequentlyitisverydifnculttodesigna

COurSearOundaphenomenonwhichwedon’tyetunderstand． ThedownfallofALMledtothe’designer’methodsofthe1970s．TheseareCommunityLanguage Learn1ng，Suggestopedia，theSilentW町，TbtalPhysicalResponse，andtheNaturalApproach．Itisthe

finalofthesedevelopedbyStephenKrashen，andhisunderlyingtheoriesoflanguageacquisitionthathas

fueleda重ercelyheateddebateoverthepasttwenty−plusyears． Krashen（1982，1985）isfarnOuSfordevelopingthe“MonitorTheory”whichbecameoneofthemost

influentialtheoriesofSLA．Krashenclaimedthatwhenlearnlngalanguageweemploytwoseparate

knowledgesystems−theacquiredsystemandthelearnedsystem．Krashenbelievesthattheacquired

SyStemistheresultoftheapplicationofthesubconsciousknowledgeofSLgrammar，Similartothe

languagelearnlngOfchildreninLlacquisitionandsimi1artothesubconsciousknowledgewehaveofour OWnLl．Thesecondknowledgesystem，thelearnedsystem，isaccordingtoKrashenlessimportantandis

theproductoffbrmallanguageteaching．Thissystemiscomposedofeasilyrememberedrulesandused

Onlywhenthestudentknowstherule，Whenthestudentisfbcusedonthetargetstructureandwhenthereis

notimepressureonthestudent．

TheMonitorHypothesisdefinestherelationshipbetweentheacquiredsystemandthelearnedsystem，

Krashenclaimsthattheacquiredsystemistheinitiatorandthelearnedsystemactsasaneditorormonitor，

COrreCtingandeditingwhennecessary．Krashenclaimsthatthemonitorprocessisnotusedwhenthe

Studentisspeakingundernormalconditionswhenthestudentisfbcusedonmeanlngratherthanfbrm．

OneofthemostinnuentialsectionsofKrashen’stheoryistheInputHypothesis．Thisattempts

toexplainhowalearneracqulreSaSeCOndlanguage．Krashenmaintainsthatlanguageislearnedby

COmPrehensibleinput，i・e・，1anguagethatisunderstoodeitherbyreadingoflistening．Languagethatis

tooeasyortoodifncultdoesnothelpalearneracqulrealanguage．Studentsneedlanguagethatisone

levelabovetheiracquiredknowledge（i＋（−1）・Theseunknownstructuresareunderstoodwiththehelpof thestudents’acquiredlanguage，WOrldknowledgeandintheclassroom．Theresultofthistheorywasthe

reductionofexplicitgrammarteachingintheclassroomandanemphasisonlanguageexposure．

(5)

The“Teachability”ofGrammarinUniversityEnglishClasses WhenthishypothesiswastakentogetherwithKrashen’sNaturalOrderhypothesistheyfbrmeda StrOngattaCkontheformalteachingofgrammar．ItwouldappearmorevaluabletothestudentifSL teachingmethodsfbcusedconsciousralSlngandexposuretolanguageattherightlevelfbrthestudents ratherthanongrammaticalrulesandcontrolledoutput． MonitorTheoryhasbeenwidelycriticizedandthiscriticismhasgenerallybeenscientifically motivated・McLaughlin（1990）criticizedtheleaming／acquisitiondistinctioninthatthis“distinction dependedontheconscious／unconsciousprocess”・McLaughlinquestionedthereliabilityofaskingstudents Whichtheyusedwhenmakinggrammaticalstatementsqrulesorftelings・Hebelievedthatstudentsmay havebeenbiasedtowardsanswerlng”fbelings”asitwastheeasieroptlOn．Krashenhimselfadmittedthat “wehavenophysiologlCalmeasurethatshowsanacquisition／learningdiffbrence”．MonitorTheory’sinput hypothesisandaf托ctivefilterhavealsoproventobeuntestable．Thei＋／−1conceptwasrecognizedby Krashen（Krashen，1985）asbeingun−uSeableduetoourpresentstateofknowledge． 1nbriefMTisonthesurfaceveryattractiveduetoitssimplicityandcomprehensivenessbutisbeset byproblems・ItdidgeneratealotofresearchinSLAandservedusbyidentifyingrelevantissuesand fbrcingustoseekalternatives． OneoftheresultsofCofder’s“studentsyllabus”andKrashen，s“naturalorderhypothesis”wasthat theexplicitteachingofgrammardeclinedwiththeriseofalternativesyllabusesinthe1970sandthe CommunicativeApproachinthelate1970sand1980s・Krashen’sclaimthatcomprehensibleinputisboth necessaryandsufncientofthesuccessfulacquisitionoflanguage，implyingthatlearn1nggrammarisboth unnecessaryandperhapsinsomecasescouldproveveryinhibitingledtothedeclineintheteachingof grammarinbothLlandL2classrooms．Similarresearchcarriedoutbyanumberofotherresearchersat

thetimewhodiscussedtheproblemsexplicitgrammarteachinghadonthemotivationoflearners（perhaps

Simi1artoKrashen’s創terbarriersandmentalblocks）． DuringthistimeitwasnotedthatinL2classroomspeoplewereabletocommunicateevenifthey

madeerrors・Thustherewasnoneedtofbcusongrammarwhichwasseenaspossiblyharmfu1toL2

1earners・Attentiontherefbreshiftedaway什omwaysofteachinggrammartowaysofgettinglearners tocommunicate．Intheprocessgrammarwaslefttosurviveonitsown．Italmostseemedsincethatal1 POSSiblewaysofteachinggrammarhadbeeninvestlgatedandhadnotworked，grammarShouldceaseto playanimportqntroleinLlandL2classrooms． WhendiscusslngKrashen’stheories，WemuStalsobearinmindtherolethatKrashenplayedin fbrmulatingtheteachingstylesandcurriculafbrteachingSpanish−SPeakingchildren，mainlyofMexican immlgrantSinCalifbrnia・Itwasintheseclassroomsthatalotofthe’battles，werefbught・ Sectionユ Whilstnonewould、arguethatmotivation，COn爺denceandotherpersonalfactors，inadditiontoamore COmmunicativestyleofteachingwithafbcusonmoreauthenticmaterialhelplearnerslearnasecond language，theideathatweshouldabandonagrammarsyllabuswasseenasproblematicbysome・Research

(6)

StudiessuggestedthatconsciousnessralSlngWaSneCeSSarybutnotsufficienttohelpstudentsachieve 鎖uencyandaccuracy・Inaddition，manyL2teachersandlearnershavebeenverywaryofgivingupsome kindofsystemthatorganizeslanguageasnotedabove・Despitetheimpactofcommunicativeteachingon teachingmethodologleS，thebulkoftheworld，ssecondandfbreignlanguagelearnerscontinuetolearn frommaterialinwhichtheprlnCiplesoforganizationandpresentationaregrammaticallybased・Itshould alsobenotedthattherequlrementSOfexaminations，mOreOftenthannottestinggrammaticalaccuracy，are CruCialintherealworldandmayplayaroleinthisreluctanceofteachersandlearnerStOmOVeaWayfrom agrammarbasedsyllabus． Therefore，insplteOfmanyattemptstodevelopaltemativesyllabuses，therehasalwaysbeensupport fbrstructuralsyllabusesinL2teaching・Johnson（1986）fbltthattherewasawayofusingastructural SyllabuswithinacommunicativeapproachandmorerecentlyEllis（1990）saidthatthestructuralsyllabus isusefu1asawayintotheacquisitionofgrammar．ResearchbyEllis，Longandothershaveshownthat explicitinstructioningrammarhasaroleonimprovlngtherateofacquisitionandavoidingfbssilization・ AdditionallyRutherfordhasidentinedastructuralsyllabusashavingapositiveroleinthedevelopmentof

COnSCiousnessralSlngWhichhehasidentifiedasimportantforinternalizingandusinglanguageaccurately

and刊uently． In1981，Sharwood−Smithsuggestedthatapproachestogrammaticalinstructioncanbeconsideredand COmParedintermsofdegreesofexplicitnessandelaboration・TheL2grammarsy11abuswas（andinmany CaSeSStillis）almostmathematicalinitsstructuralprogressionandthetechnicaltermswerememorized akintotheoremsinmathematics・ConsciousnessRaising（CR）asdescribedbyRutherfbrd（1994）isa midwayoracpmpromisebetweenthe＝mathematicalapproach”andthe＝nogrammarapproach門toL2 acquisition・CRdoesfbcusongrammarbutwithoutuslngeXPlicitrulesortechnicalvocabulary・CRaims tohelplearnersdiscoverrulesbyfbcuslngOnaSpeCtSOfthetargetstructure，butunlikethecommunicative approach，bytellinglearnerswhichstructuresarewrongandprovidingcorrectalternatives．

LearnabilityTheorydevelopedbyRutherford（1987）rqjectedthebeliefthatlanguageisan

Hassemblageofhierarchicallyarrangedconstructsandthatthe＝teaching／1earnlngisthedirectimpartingof theseconstructsbytheteachertothelearner”・InsteadRutherfbrdsuggestsagrammar−Centeredcurriculum thatwouldallowstudentstoprogressattheirownpace・ThiswouldrecognlZetheHnatureoflanguage learn1ngaSaprOCeSSOforganicgrowthMandallowlearnerstoprogressivelyconvertlanguagechunksinto analyzedlanguageandtherebyextendhisrangeoflanguagecompetency． Learnabilityisconcernedwiththemechanismofprogressionfromonestateofknowledgetothenext． Oneofthecentralquestionsiswhatcausesortriggersthisprogression・1thasbeenfbundthatinputalone isnotenoughasthereisnothingtote11thestudentwhensomethinglSWrOng・Thisisespeciallythecase Whenastudentoverusesaruleorconstruction．OneofthecentralideasofCRisthatthestudentsneed “negativeevidence”． CRaimsatexplicitknowledge−1earnersareglVendataillustratlngthetargetfbrmandinsome CaSeSareglVenaneXplicitrule・Thelearnersareexpectedto“provideintellectualeffbrt”，andfbrmulate

aruledescribingthetargetstructure・TheapproachfavoredbyCRisproblem−SOIvingor＝learnlng

(7)

The“Teachability’ofGrammarinUniversityEnglishClasses bydiscovery”（E11is，1992）．CRcannotbeseparatedfromlexisandtheuseofauthenticmaterialisan importantpartofCR．Thisallowsteacherstotreatlexico−grammaticalitemsinaslnglelesson，allowlng

thestudentswhohavealreadymasteredthestructuretofbcusonthelexis，Whilestudentswhohaveyetto

masterthestructureareabletofocusonit．Theproblemsolvingapproachencouragesstudentstothinkfor

themselvesandnotrelyontheteacherofgrammarbooksforanexplanation．ThecasestudybyⅥp（1994），

illustrateshowCRcanbeusedtohelpstudentsunderstandareasthatstudentshaveproblemswithand

thatgrammarbooksfailtoexplainadequately（inthiscasethediffbrencesbetweenpassivesandergative

StruCtureS）．ThedifEbrencesbetweenthesefrequentlycausestudentsalotofproblemsandmostgrammar

booksignorethem（COBUILDEnglishGrammarisoneoftheexpectationsanddoesincludeasectionon

SuChverbs）． However，CRhasbeencriticizedmainlybysupportersofNaturalOrderandStu−dentSyllabus theories．Ifthesetheoriesarecorrect，thenCRisanexerciseinfutilityasstudentscanonlyacqulrea

StruCtureataglVentimeandinacertainnaturalprogression．Butashasalreadybeendiscussedtherearea

lotofproblemssupportingthesetheoriesandthemechanlsmsbehindthemarenotfu11yunderstood．

Inaddition，itcanbearguedthatCRisnotfbreveryone，eSPeCiallyifstudentsaremoreusedtoa traditionalapproach．Studentsmayfbelthatitisateacher’sjobtoteachthemgrammar，tOglVeCOnCrete

rulesandtoglVeeXerCisesthatpromotetheretentionofstructures．Theymayfbelthatitisawasteof

timeandmoneyiftheyhavetoworkthingsoutforthemselves．Theremaybeamidwaypositionwiththe

teacherglVlngarule，learnerSfindingevidenceandthentheoppositewiththeteacherglVlngevidenceand

thestudentsfbrmulatingtheirownru1es．Thismaybesatisfactorytostudentswhowantamoretraditional

approach．OneadditionalproblemwithaCRapproachisthatitisdifBculttomeasureprogresswithsuch

amethod．Studentsmaylosemotivationanditmaybenecessaryfortheteachertoresorttodri11soruslng

agrammartextbooktoglVethemasenseofmasteringsomething．

AmoremodernalternativetothestructuralsyllabusisWillis’LexicalSyllabus．Tnsettingouthis

PrOpOSalsforthishestates：

“TheprocessofsyllabusdesigninvoIvesitemlZlnglanguagetoidentifywhatistobelearned． CommunlcativemethodologylnVOIvesexposuretonaturallanguageusetOenablelearnersto applytheirinnatefacultiestorecreatelanguagesystems．Thereisanobviouscontradiction betweenthetwo．Anapproachwhichitemizeslanguageseemstoimplythatitemscanbelearned discreetlyandthelanguagecanbebuilt魚■OmanaCCretionoftheseitems．Communicative methodologyisholisticinthatitreliesontheabilityofthelearnerStOabstract丘omthelanguage towhichtheyareexposed，inordertorecreateapICtureOfthetargetlanguage．The）exical approachisanattempttoreconcilethiscontradiction．”（Willis1990：Viii） Thelexicalsyllabusdoesnotignoregrammarbutlooksatitfromadifferentstandpoint．Willis believesthatbytakinglexisasastartingpointitassuresthatattentionisdrawntothemostfrequentwords，

(8)

theirmeanlngandpattems・Willisftelsthatratherthanignorlnggrammar，grammarisnowmorecomplete thanintraditionalgrammarbooks・Willisgoesontodiscusshowitispossibletoconstructastudents， COrPuSbasedonwrittenandspokentexts・Studentsareexposedtothisinaseriesoftask−based，prOblem SOIvingactivitiesintheclassroom．Havingexperiencedthisthestudentsdoexerciseswhichfbcustheir attentiononthecommonwordpatternS． AdevelopmentofthelexicalapproachisDataDrivenLearning（DDL）．Thisisacomputerbased teachingmethodthatofftrsanalternativetotherulebasedapproaches・InDDLstudentsareexposedto COmPutergeneratedconcordances・Theseconcordanceso食enrevealthatreallanguagedoesnotcoincide Withthesimplifiedandidealizedversionthatteachersandtextbooksuse．OneofthemaineffbctsofDDL

isthereevaluationoftheplaceofgrammar・Traditionallygrammarmethodsmakeassumptionsabout

Whatistobelearnedandhowitistobelearned・Usuallystudentsarepresentedwithasetofruleswhich arethenreconstructedintothetext・DDLtriestoraisethestudents，awarenessofthelanguagebyplaclng learnerS，owndiscoveryofgrammaratthecenterandbymakingitpossibleforthatdiscoverytobebased OneVidence丘omauthenticlanguageuse（Johns1991）． ByuslngauthenticmaterialsandbystudentsdrawlngtheirownconclusionsWillisandJohnsfbel thatパthismethodgoesalongwaytowardsdispellingthemythsanddistortionsassociatedwiththemore traditionalgrammarteachingmethods（Johns1991a，1991b）・Theyarguethatbyfbcusingonthemeaning （i・e・，1exicalitem）ratherontheverbformthesyllabusbecomesmuchmoresemanticallyorientated． DDLisarathernewmethod，andsofar，SeemStOOfferstudentsseveraladvantages・Oneofthe

mainadvantageSOfDDListhatitcanreacttothestudentsneeds・Oneofthebigdangersofastructural

approachisthatithasbecomestagnantandoftentheneedsofindividualstudentsarelgnOred・However， thereareanumberofissuesthatstillneedtobeaddressed，mainlytheuseofDDLwithlowerlevel

Students・JohnssuggeststhatDDLmaybeusedincort）unCtionwithCRormayborrowtechniquesfromit

（Johns1991a：311）． AnothermodernmethodthatfbcusesontheuseofauthenticthatisbecomlngVerypOpularfbr

developlngtargetlanguagenuencyandstudentconndenceisTaskBasedLanguageLearnlng・TBL

WaSinitiallydevelopedbyPrabhu（1987）andhasbeenfurtherdevelopedbyDaveandJaneWi11is

（1996，1998），DavidNunan（1988，2006）andRodEllis（1990，1992）etc．TBLfbcusesonstudentsusing

authenticlanguageanddoingmeaningfu1tasksuslngthetargetlanguage・Allpartsoflanguageusedare

deemphasizedduringtheactualtaskitself；inordertogetstudentstofbcusonthetask．JaneWillis（1996， 2008）developedarathercomprehensiveframeworkbreakingthelessonintoseveralstages． Thesestages（pre−taSk，taSk，planningreport，analysis，praCtice）canberemovedoraddedtoasthe instructorseesBt・Inthepre−taSkstagetheteacherpresentswhatwi11beexpectedofthestudentsinthe

taskphase・Theteachermayalsopresentlanguageorstructuresthatmayproveusefu1tothestudentsbut

Oftenthesewi11bepresentedassuggestionsandthestudentsencouragedtousewhateverlanguageor StruCtureStheyfbelcomfbrtablewithinordertocompletethetask・Inthetaskphasethestudentsperfbrm

thetaskinsmallgroupswiththeteacherlimitedtotheroleofobserverorcounselor・Duringtheplannlng

StageStudentsHpolishHtheirlanguageinpreparationfbrthenextstage，thepresentationorreportstage・

(9)

The“Teachability”ofGrammarinUniversityEnglishClasses HerethestudentsglVeaPublicperfbrmanceofthetasktotheirfbllowstudents．Inplanningfbrthis，the Students’ノfocusisonaccuracyandconsiderableimprovementintermsofaccuracyandcomplexitywhen COmParedwiththetaskstagehavebeennoted（McCrohan，2000）．

Intheanalysisstage，thefbcusreturnstotheteacherwhonowreviewswhathappenedduringthe

task．TheteachermaylnCludelanguageformsthestudentsusedorproblemstheyhad．Thefinalstageor

PraCticestageisusedtocovermaterialmentionedbythestudentintheanalysisstage．Itisanopportunity

fbrtheteachertoemphasizecertainlexicaltermsorgrammaticalstructures．

Themqoradvantagesofthismethodarethatitisastudent−Centeredteachingmethodthatallowsfbr

meaningfu1communication，prOVidesencouragementfbrgrammaticalaccuracyduringthevariousstages

Ofthelesson・Them毎orcriticismofthismethodhasbeeninthedifBcultyindefiningwhatataskactually is（Nunan，2006）andadaptingthismethodfbrlow−1evelleamers．

Section3

Havingbrie重yreviewedanumberofSLAtheoriesinadditiontothreemodernaPPrOaChestosecond languageteaching，WeareStillleftwiththequestion“Whatistherole，ifany，Ofgrammarbooksinthe SeCOndlanguageclassroom？” 1fweagreewithCorder’sstudentsyllabustheoryorKrashen’sNaturalOrderHypothesisthegrammar bookshavenorolewhatsoeverintheclassroom．Infactitcouldbearguedthatuslngagrammarbook WOuldbecounterproductive．ThesameistrueifwefbelthatKrashen’sclaimthatcomprehensibleinput isbothnecessaryandsu僅cientforsuccessfu11anguageacqulSltlOn，thenagalngrammarbookshaveno roletoplaylnlanguagelearnlng．However，aShasalreadybeenshown，thereareanumberofconsiderable problemswithKrashen’snaturalorderandCorder’sstudentsy11abustheoriesandinaddition，reCent researchhasshownthatleavlnggrammarOutOftheclassroomisnotsufncientfbraccuratelanguage Classroom．ConsequentlythependulumhasswungbackandexplicitgrammarteachinglSOnCemOre fbundinourlanguageclassroomsalbeitinadiffbrentfbrm． Withthereturnofgrammartotheclassroomwewereinundatedwithnewlypublishedgrammar bookssuchasEnglishGrammarinUse（Murphy，1989）orCOBUILDStudent’sEnglishGrammar（1990， ThompsonLearning）．1nrecentyears，aneWgenerationofgrammarbookshaveappearedonthemarket， 0允enfbcuslngOnCOnSCiousralSlngaCtivitiesforstudentsusmgauthenticmaterialsratherthanonexercises

focuslngOnthecomprehensionofonepolntOfgrammar．BooksthatfallunderthiscategoryareGrammar

forEnglishLanguageTeachers（Parrott，2000CUP）andExploringGrammarinContext（Carteretal，2000 CUP）・Notonlyhastherebeenanincreaseinthenumberofbooksfbcusingexclusivelyongrammarbut

newercoursebooksalsoincorporateaconsiderableamountofgrammarteaching．Oneoftheearliestand

mostpopularofthesetextbooksisthe肋adwqySeriesoftextbookswiththeearliestbeingproducedin 1983andnewerupdatededitionspublished什om20000nWards．Thesenewertextbooksusua11yfbcuson grammarincontextuslngauthenticmaterialasmuchaspossible． Formanystudents，thelearnlngOfgrammariscentraltotheirideaofwhatlanguagelearnlngisabout．

(10)

Theywantandexpecttobetaughtgrammarandthatsomesortofgrammarbookwi11beusedintheir languageclasses・TbachersareOftenunderalotofpressuretomeettheseexpectationsandfbelobligedto PrOduceagrammarbookatsomestageofthecourse． OverthepastroughlytwentyyearslivinginJapan，theauthorshaveworkedinallpossiblesituations 丘omkindergartentouniversitytocommunityEnglishclasses・Overtheyearsthemainbooksusedinthe

SChooIswehaveworkedfbraretheStreamlineseries，theHeadtvcvseriesandaselectionofuniversity

levelwritingandcommunicationbooks．Streamlineisaseriesofstructural／functionalcoursebooks forelementarytoadvancedstudents．Thesebooksarefinelyrootedinmemorizationsofstructuresand grammaticalexplanationsarekepttoaminimum．Theunitsaslistedintheindexinthestudentsbooks，do

notindicatewhichstructuresaretobestudiedandmanyoftheexamplesinthebookaremisleadingand

toosimplistic・Forexample，COuntable／non−COuntablenounsthatcanbebothdependingonthecontext arelgnOredasarearticles，tranSitiveandintransitiveverbsandmanymoreitems．Allexercisesinthebook andworkbookcloselyfbllowthedialoguesinthetextbookswithlittleornovariation・Studentsaremostly restrictedtothesetightlycontrolledexercises． Incontrast，the助adwqyseriesisarangeofbooksfromelementarytoadvancedwitheachbook dividedintounitsthatareclearlystructured，Withheadingsthatclarifytheaimandnatureofeachactivity． Grammaticalstructuresareintroducedincontext，withexercisesthatencouragestudentstoworkoutthe rulesfbrthemselves・The㍑Languagereview＝sectionineachunitgivesashortsummaryofthetarget StruCtureanditsuses，andiscross−referencedtothecomprehensive“Grammarsection”atthebackofthe book．旅adwqyprovidesawidevarietyofpracticeactivities．Theserange舟omcontrolledpracticesuchas

SentenCetranSfbrmationtofreepracticesuchasinformationgapandroleplay．Theseactivitiespractice

accuratelanguageuseinallfourlanguageskills・Thereadingcomprehensionandgrammarexercisetexts aretaken丘omawiderangeofdiffbrentsources，SuChasnewspapers，interviews，magaZines，Classicaland modernliterature・Alllevelbookshaveauthenticsourcesbutmanyhavebeenadaptedtosuitthelanguage aimsandthelevel，eSPeCiallyatlowerlevels． ThemaingrammarbooksusedwiththeEducationalFacultystudents’grammarclassandas

SupplementarymaterialsinthegeneralEnglishclassesareEnglishGrammarinthebyRaymondMurphy，

andEnglishGrammarjbrLanguageTbachersbyMichaelParrott．TheEnglishGrammarinthebooks

arenowavailablefbrdifferentlevelstudentsandareverypopularwithbothteachersandstudents．The grammarispresentedineasy＝chunks門withclearexamplesandexercisesonthecorrespondingpage・ Theanswersarealsoincludedsocanbeusedasaselflstudybook・However，thegrammarisoftentoo Simplistic・Forexample，theuseofmodalverbswhenmakingahypothesisorinconditionalsentencesis largelyignoredandtransitiveverbsareleftoutentirely．

GrammarjbrEnglishlanguqgeteachersisabookonthemethodologyofteachinggrammar，andis

arefbrencebookfbrteachersandteachersintralnlngWhoneedtoknowmoreaboutthenatureofEnglish

grammar．Aneducatedlanguageteachingproftssionalorstudentsatanadvancedlevelneedtohavea ClearunderstandingofhowEnglishworksatthelevelofgrammar・Thebooksetsouttohelpteachers

(11)

The“Teachability”ofGramInarinUniversityEnglishClasses

andadvancedstudentsdeveloptheirunderstandingofEnglishgrammar，prOVidesareftrencefbrplarmlng

lessonsandclarifyinglearner’sproblems，andexaminestypICaldifncultieslearnershavewithvarious di飴rentareasofEnglishgrammar．

Thisisanoutstandingteacherresourcebookonseveralcounts：

1．itisveryuserfriendly−eXtremelyclearexplanationsandorganization 2．itiswell−reSearChedandaccurate−Parrottclearsawaysomecommon

misconceptionsaboutmanyaspectsofgrammarandpresentstheresultsofrecent

researchongrammar

3．ithasexercisestohelpconsolidatetheinformationitpresents

Sinceitcontainsananswerkeyitconstitutesanexcellentselfstudycoursethatcanbecompletedon

OneTsown． Oneofthebiggestproblemswithusinggrammarbooksisthattheexamplesareo魚enoversimplified

andtakenoutofcontextasintheblglishGrammarintbeseries．Whilethisdoesmakeiteasierfbrthe

Students，eSpeCiallyatlowerlevels，ifwefbelthatCRandDDLarerelevanttotheteachingofgrammar thenwemustrealizethatstructuresmustbepresentedincontextandifpossible，fromauthenticsources．

AsDDLhighlights，1exisandstructureareallpartofthesamethingandthattoseparatethemglVeSOnly

Partialinfbrmationtothestudent，BothconsciousralSlngandDDLencouragethestudenttousetheir

intelligencetodiscovertheanswersforthemselvesuslngauthenticmaterials，inDDL，COmPutergenerated

SentenCeSShowingacertainrelevantftatureandinCRasarticleofsomeotherauthenticsourceareused．

Aspointedoutearliermanyexamplesinevenpopulargrammarbooksarespeciallyfbrmulatedtoshow

Clearandeasybutunrealisticexamples，Wehavetoaskhowusefu1thesearetostudentsinreallifbaway

fromtheclassroom．

Additionally，1nmanygrammarbookstherulesareprintedalongsidetheexamplesandtheexercise

Oftensocloselyfbllowtheexamplesthatallastudenthastodoisaslot創1ingexercise．Asitcanbe

imaginedsuchexerciseareeasyanddogivethestudentsaftelingofmasteringthestructurebutsuch

teChniquesinvoIvelittleeffbltOnthepartofthestudentandareprobablyquicklyfbrgotten．

Ittherefbrecouldbearguedthatwhenpresentinganewgrammaticalpointtostudentsthepolnt

Shouldbeintroduced魚・Omauthenticsourcesifpossibleorifnot，thenfromagrammarbookthatuses authenticsourc戸Sinitspresentationandexercises・StudentsshouldbeinvoIvedintheunderstandingof

thestructureandthestructureshouldbeintroducedinafashionwherebythestudentsknowhow，When

andwheretouseitandnotonlyhowtofbrmthestructurebuttoalsobeawareofitscommonlyfbund

COllocationsandifrelevant，SOCialreglSter．

Certainstudentswouldcertainlybenefitfromthisapproachratherthanthemoretraditionalmethods

fbundinmanygrammarbooks．Returnees，（eitherchiIdrenoradultswhoreturntotheirhomecountrya允er manyyearsabroadandusingEnglishdaily）0氏enhavegapsintheirgrammaticalknowledge．Frequently theymisusethepastperfbct，PaSSivesandergativestructures，articleandprepositionsanddonotrespond Welltotraditionalapproaches．CRand／orDl）LwouldbeneAtthesestudentsasitwouldactivelyinvoIve

thestudentsinthelearnlngprOCeSS．

(12)

Conversely，grammarbooksthatconveypointsfbllowedbycloselyconnectedexercisesmaybeof benefittostudentswholackcon且dencesuchasfalse−beginners什equentlyfbundinlowerlevelclasses hereinJapan・Thesimplicityandlackofdetailmaybetothesestudents’advantageastheycaneasilysee PrOgreSS，ftelasiftheyareincontroloftheirlearnlnganddonotfbeloverwhelmedbydetailasmaybe thecasewithCRofDDL． AdditionallybyfbcuslngOnPublicpresentationsaswedointhegeneraleducationSWspeaking Classes，Studentsareencouragedtomovefromafbcuson刑uencywhenpreparlngtheirpresentationsto amorecontrolledformoflanguagewhenactuallyglVlngpublicpresentations．Thisshiftinfbcusisone OftheunderlyingtheoriesbehindTBL，（Willis，J・，1996）・DuringtheSWcoursestudentsareexposedto

awiderangeoflanguageastheylearntogivedif詣rentkindsofpresentationsandalsoastheyfocuson

thedifftrentsectionsofthepresentation・Studentsobserveand／orlistentosimi1arpresentationsbefbre practicingthemselves・Byobservlnganddoingsimi1artasksallowsthelearnertbdrawmore，duringthe actualcompletionofthetask，OnPlanneddiscourse（Ellis，1987）・Lesstimeistherefbrespentwondering Whatthetask（presentation）requirementsareorhowthetaskmayneedtobestructured．Asaresult， attentioncanbedirectedtothemoremicro−aCtivityofthedetailofthelanguagewhichisbeingused．This increasesthe且uencyandaccuracyofthelanguageusedbystudents（McCrohan，2000）． Studentslearnlanguageprlmarilythroughexposuretolanguage，byuslnglanguageandbymaking mistakes・Grammarbookscanbeusedasa㍑tool，，thatcanhelpthemmakesenseofthelanguagethey haveexperiencedandifthegrammarbookusesauthenticmaterialsandactivelyengagesthestudentin learnlngandprocesslngneW㍑rulesMmayalsobeusedtoteachnewmaterial． Conclusion Overthepastthirtyyearslanguageteachinghascomefu11circle，什omanemphasisongrammarand rotememorizationthroughtoanabsenceofgrammarduringthestrongestyearsofthecommunicative methodtothesituationtodaywhereoncemore“grammarisbackM・ GrammarteachingfblloutofusefbranumberofgoodreasonsandAusubel，CorderandKrashen developedtheoriesthatsuggestthatrotememorizationwasnotthebestwaytolearnalanguage・Krashen， SMonitorTheorywasoneoftheSLAtheoriesduringthelate1970sand1980s．Theseresearcherscaused teachersofEnglishinbothLlandL2classroomstore−eValuatetheplaceofgrammar，Whatwastaught andhowitwastaught． SincethenMonitorTheoryhasbeenattackedonanumberoffrontsbutwehaveretainedmany featuresofit−mainlythatpeoplecanacqulrealanguagebutfbrmostpeoplesimpleexposureto languageisn’tenough． Intoday，sclassroomswearetendingmoretowardsamiddleground，Wherewerealizethatexposure

torealEnglishisanimportantpartoflanguagelearnlngandthatgrammarisbesttaught什omauthentic

SOurCeSandnotinisolationbutinconnectionwithlexis． CR，DDLandTBLtakethisapproachandperhapsthesemethodsorcombinationsofthemholdthe

(13)

The“Teachability”ofGrammarinUniversityEnglishClasses greatestpromisefbrthefuture・ Grammarbooksplayaroleinhelpingstudentsconsolidatewhattheyhavelearnedintheclassroomand givestudentscon翁denceandmotivation（byseeingprogress）buttheyarenotdesignedtostandalonebut tobeusedincoruunctionwithauthenticmaterial．

Bibliography

Ausubel，D．A．1963．Cognitivestructureandthefacilitationofmeaningfu1verballeammg．Journalof TbacherEducation14：217−424 Ausubel，D．A．1968 EducationalPsychology：ACognitiveView．NewYork：Holt，Rinehart＆Winston Brown，H．D．1972 Cognitiveprunlngandsecondlanguageacquisition．ModernLanguageJourna1 56：218−22 Carter，R．2000ExploringGrammarinContext CUP COBUILDStudent’sEnglishGrammar1990，ThompsonLearn1ng Corder，S．Pit．1967Thesign描canceoflearners’errors．InternationalReviewofAppliedLingulStics 5：161−170 Ellis，R，1987 lnterlanguagevariabilityinnarrativediscourse、InStudiesinSecondLanguage ．ー．・lノ∼心／／／＝＝．いイ・ごノソー／ご−ごノン Ellis，R．1992 SecondlanguageAcquisitionandLanguagePedagogyMultilingualMatters Ellis，R．1990 7nstructedSecondLanguageAcquisition，Blackwe11，Oxfbrd Kellerman，E．1987InSecondLanguageGrammar：LearningandTbaching，TnRutherfbrdWilliamE．（Ed）

AddisonWesleyPublishingCompany

JohnsT．F．1991a Shouldyoubepersuaded：TwoexamplesofData−drivenLearnlnginJohns，T．Fand King，R（ed）1991 Johns，T．F．1991b FromPrintouttoHandout：GrammartoVocdbularyrrbachingintheContextofData− drivenLearninginJohns，TFandKing，R（ed）1991 Johnson，K．1986“LanguageltachingasSki11Training’’，CentreforAppliedLanguageStudy，University

OfReading．

Krashen，S．D．1982Princ桓JesandPracticeinSecondLanguageAcquisition．Oxford：Pergamon． Krashen，S．D，1985TheInputHypothesis：IssuesandTmplications．NewYork：Longman． Larsen−Freeman，D．andLong，M．H．1991AnlntroductiontoSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch

Harlow：Longman

Lightbrown，R1985GreatExpectations：SeCOndlanguageacquisitionresearchandclassroomteaching．

AppliedLinguistics6

LightbownRandN．Spada．1998Howlanguagesareleamed．OxfordUniversityPress，p．38−40． Long，M．H．1981’Input，interactionandsecondlanguageacquisition’，AnalsofNewYorkAcademyof Sciences，259−78

(14)

McCrohan，G・2000HowPublicPerformancesinnuencesstudents，fluencyandaccuracyduringthe PreSentationphaseoftheTBLcycle・UnpublishedMAThesisUniversityofBirmingham McLoughlin，B．1990”Restructuring’’，AppliedLingulSticsll：2113−128 Murphy，R．1986 EnglishGrammarinUse．CUP Nunan，D・2006 rrhsk−basedlanguageteachingintheAsiaContext：De且ningHtaskHinProceedingfbrm theAsianEFLJournalInternationalConftrence，Sept2006＼わ18．Issue3 Parrott，M・2000GrammarfbrEnglishLanguageTbachers CUP Pica，T・andDoughy，D・1985InputandInteractioninthecommunicativelanguageclassroom：a COmParisonofteacher−frontedandgroupactivities．GlassMadden（1985） Prabhu，N．S．1987 SecondLanguagePedagogyOUP Rutherfbrd，W1987 SecondlanguageGrammar：LearnlngandTbachingLongman Sharwood−Smith，M・1981Conscious−ralSlngandtheSecondLanguageLearner・AppliedLinguistics2：2 Vip，V1994GrammaticalConsciousness−ralSlngandlearnabilityinPerspectivesonPedagoglCal GramrnarOdlinT（ed）CUP

Willis，J・2008 SixtypesoftasksfbrTBL BritishCouncil／BBC，retrievedAugust2008・http：／／www・ teachingenglish．org．uk／think／articles／six−types−taSk−tbl

Willis，J・1996 AftameworkfbrThsk−BasedLearningLongman Willis，］．D．1990 TheLexicalSyllabusCollinsCobuild

Willis，J・D・andWillis，J・R・1987 ⅥlriedactivitiesfbrvariablelanguagelearnlnginEIJJourna141：1 Willis，J・D・andWillis，J・R・1996 ChallengeandChangeinLanguagerrbachingHeinemann