Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:58:35.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

6. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN RESEARCH ON THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2004

Hossein Nassaji  and
Sandra Fotos
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the rise of communicative methodology in the late 1970s, the role of grammar instruction in second language learning was downplayed, and it was even suggested that teaching grammar was not only unhelpful but might actually be detrimental. However, recent research has demonstrated the need for formal instruction for learners to attain high levels of accuracy. This has led to a resurgence of grammar teaching, and its role in second language acquisition has become the focus of much current investigation. In this chapter we briefly review the major developments in the research on the teaching of grammar over the past few decades. This review addresses two main issues: (1) whether grammar teaching makes any difference to language learning; and (2) what kinds of grammar teaching have been suggested to facilitate second language learning. To this end, the chapter examines research on the different ways in which formal instruction can be integrated with communicative activities.

Type
RESEARCH IN TEACHING LANGUAGE SYSTEMS
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 24 , January 2004 , pp. 126 - 145
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aljaafreh A., & Lantolf J. 1994 Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465– 483.Google Scholar
Allen Q. 2000 Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69– 84.Google Scholar
Bailey N., Madden C., & Krashen S. 1974 Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235– 243.Google Scholar
Batstone R. 1994 Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benati A. 2001 A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95– 127.Google Scholar
Bialystock E. 1990 The competence of processing: Classifying theories of second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 635– 648.Google Scholar
Bialystok E. 1994 Representation and ways of knowing: Three issues in second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Explicit and implicit learning of languages (pp. 549– 569). London: Academic Press.
Bygate M., Skehan P., & Swain M. (Eds.). 2001 Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. New York: Longman.
Cadierno T. 1995 Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179– 193.Google Scholar
Carroll S., & Swain M. 1993 Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357– 386.Google Scholar
Carter R., Hughes R., & McCarthy M. 2000 Exploring grammar in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia M. 2002 Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 119– 134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Celce-Murcia M., Dörnyei Z., & Thurrell S. 1997 Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141– 152.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia M., & Olshtain E. 2000 Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook V. 1991 Second language learning and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
DeKeyser R. 1998 Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42– 63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser R. 2001 Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125– 151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser R., & Sokalski K. 2001 The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 51, 81– 112.Google Scholar
Doughty C. 1991 Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431– 496.Google Scholar
Doughty C. 2001 Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206– 257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty C., & Varela E. 1998 Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114– 138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dulay H., & Burt M. 1974 Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37– 53.Google Scholar
Dulay H., Burt M., & Krashen S. 1982 Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis N. 1994 Implicit and explicit processes in language acquisition: An introduction. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1– 32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis N. 1995 Consciousness in second language acquisition: A review of field studies and laboratory experiments. Language Awareness, 4, 121– 146.Google Scholar
Ellis N. 2002 Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143– 188.Google Scholar
Ellis R. 1985 Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R. 1990 Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Ellis R. 1994 The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R. 1995 Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87– 106.Google Scholar
Ellis R. 1997 SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R. 2001 Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51 Supplement, 1– 46.Google Scholar
Ellis R. 2002a Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223– 236.Google Scholar
Ellis R. 2002b The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17– 34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis R. 2003 Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R., Basturkmen H., & Loewen S. 2001a Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281– 318.Google Scholar
Ellis R., Basturkmen H., & Loewen S. 2001b Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407– 432.Google Scholar
Ellis R., Basturkmen H., & Loewen S. 2002 Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419– 432.Google Scholar
Fotos S. 1993 Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385– 407.Google Scholar
Fotos S. 1994 Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2), 323– 351.Google Scholar
Fotos S. 1998 Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52, 301– 307.Google Scholar
Fotos S. 2002 Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135– 155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fotos S., & Ellis R. 1991 Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605– 628.Google Scholar
Gass S., Mackey A., & Pica T. 1998 The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 82 (3), 229– 305.Google Scholar
Goldschneider J. M., & DeKeyser R. M. 2001 Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1– 50.Google Scholar
Harley B., & Swain M. 1984 The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291– 311). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Hinkel E. 1999 Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 90– 108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinkel E. 2002a Grammar teaching in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 181– 198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinkel E. 2002b Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.) New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 233– 260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinkel E. 2002c Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Howatt A. 1984 A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hughes R., & McCarthy M. 1998 From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 263– 287.Google Scholar
Iwashita N. 2003 Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1– 36.Google Scholar
Izumi S. 2002 Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541– 577.Google Scholar
Kelly L. 1969 25 centuries of language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kowal M., & Swain M. 1994 Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73– 93.Google Scholar
Krashen S. 1981 Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen S. 1993 The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 722– 725.Google Scholar
Krashen S. D. 1999 Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 245– 257.Google Scholar
Lapkin S., Hart D., & Swain M. 1991 Early and Middle French immersion programs: French language outcomes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 11– 40.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman D., & Long M. 1991 An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman D. 2003 Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Lee J., & VanPatten B. 1995 Making communicative language teaching happen. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
Leow R. 1998 Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133– 159.Google Scholar
Leow R. 2001 Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113– 155.Google Scholar
Leow R. 2002 Models, attention, and awareness in SLA: A response to Simard and Wong's “Alertness, orientation, and detection: The conceptualization of attention functions in SLA.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 113– 119.Google Scholar
Lightbown P. 1992 What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Philipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 197– 212). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown P. 2000 Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431– 462.Google Scholar
Lightbown P., & N. Spada. 1990 Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429– 448.Google Scholar
Long M. 1983 Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359– 382.Google Scholar
Long M. 1988 Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115– 141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long M. 1991 Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39– 52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Long M. 2000 Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179– 192). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Long M., Inagaki S., & Ortega L. 1998 The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 357– 371.Google Scholar
Long M., & Robinson P. 1998 Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15– 41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loschky L., & Bley-Vroman R. 1993 Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123– 163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster R. 2001 Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51 Supplement, 265– 301.Google Scholar
Lyster R., & Ranta L. 1997 Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37– 66.Google Scholar
Mackey A. 1999 Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557– 587.Google Scholar
Mackey A., & Oliver R. 2002 Interactional feedback and children's L2 development. System, 30 (4), 459– 477.Google Scholar
Mackey A., & Philp J. 1998 Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 338– 356.Google Scholar
McDonough K., & Mackey A. 2000 Communicative tasks, conversational interaction and linguistic form: An empirical study of Thai. Foreign Language Annals, 33 (1), 82– 92.Google Scholar
Mitchell R. 2000 Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 21, 281– 303.Google Scholar
Nassaji H. 1999 Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 385– 402.Google Scholar
Nassaji H. 2000 A reply to Sheen. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 507– 513.Google Scholar
Nassaji H. 2002 Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439– 481.Google Scholar
Nassaji H., & Cumming A. 2000 What is in the ZPD: A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4, 95– 121.Google Scholar
Nassaji H., & Swain M. 2000 A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34– 51.Google Scholar
Nassaji H., & Wells G. 2000 What's the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376– 406.Google Scholar
Nicholas H. Lightbown P., & Spada N. 2001 Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719– 758.Google Scholar
Nobuyoshi J., & Ellis R. 1993 Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 113– 128.Google Scholar
Norris J., & Ortega L. 2000 Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417– 428.Google Scholar
Nunan D. 1989 Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ohta A. 2000 Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J. Hall & L. Verplaeste (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47– 71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ohta A. 2001 Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pienemann M. 1984 Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186– 214.Google Scholar
Pienemann M. 1988 Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA Review, 5, 40– 72.Google Scholar
Pienemann M. 1999 Language, processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reber A. 1967 Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 855– 863.Google Scholar
Reber A. 1989 Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 118, 219– 235.Google Scholar
Reber A. 1993 Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Robinson P. 1995 Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45 (2), 283– 331.Google Scholar
Robinson P. 1996 Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 27– 68.Google Scholar
Robinson P. 2001 Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influence on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287– 318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rutherford W. 1987 Second language grammar learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Rutherford W. 1988 Grammatical consciousness raising in brief historical perspective. In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds), Grammar and second language teaching (pp. 15– 19). New York: Newbury House.
Schmidt R. W. 1990 The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 129– 158.Google Scholar
Schmidt R. W. 1993 Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206– 226.Google Scholar
Schmidt R. W. 2001 Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3– 32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz B. 1993 On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147– 163.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith M. 1993 Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165– 179.Google Scholar
Sheen R. 1992 Problem solving brought to task. RELC Journal, 23, 44– 59.Google Scholar
Sheen R. 2002 ‘Focus on form’ and ‘focus on forms.’ ELT Journal, 56, 303– 304.Google Scholar
Skehan P. 1996 Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17– 30). Oxford: Heinemann.
Skehan P. 1998 A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada N. 1997 Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 29, 1– 15.Google Scholar
Swain M. 1985 Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235– 253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain M. 1995 Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125– 144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain M. 2000 The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97– 114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain M. 2001 Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44– 63.Google Scholar
Swain M. (In press). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swain M., & Lapkin S. 1989 Canadian immersion and adult second language teaching—What's the connection. Modern Language Journal, 73, 150– 159.Google Scholar
Swain M., & Lapkin S. 1998 Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320– 337.Google Scholar
Swain M., & Lapkin S. 2001 Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99– 118). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Tomlin R. S., & Villa V. 1994 Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183– 202.Google Scholar
Tomasello M. 1998 Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. vii– xxiii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trahey M., & White L. 1993 Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181– 204.Google Scholar
Truscott J. 1996 The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327– 369.Google Scholar
Truscott J. 1998 Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103– 135.Google Scholar
Van den Branden K. 1997 Effects of negotiation on language learners' output. Language Learning, 47, 589– 636.Google Scholar
van Lier L. 1988 The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman
VanPatten B. 1993 Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 435– 450.Google Scholar
VanPatten B. 1996 Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten B. 2002 Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755– 803.Google Scholar
VanPatten B., & Cadierno T. 1993 Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225– 244.Google Scholar
VanPatten B., & Oikennon S. 1996 Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495– 510.Google Scholar
Wajnryb R. 1990 Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White J. 1998 Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85– 113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zobl H. 1995 Converging evidence for the “acquisition–learning” distinction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 35– 56.Google Scholar