Grammar Translation Method contents I. Introduction II. Main part

Attitudes to grammar

The question arising here is whether knowing grammar is important for the learner or not. Generally speaking, at a very basic level, words on their own are often enough for communication in the most common situations. However, when we need to express more complex meaning, words may not be enough. Thus, grammar is essential if we want to communicate more effectively and more precisely.
According to Thornbury the role of grammar is “a subject that everyone involved in language teaching has an opinion on” (Thornbury 2000: 14). Subsequently, he points out a number of statements on the subject:

• 
  “There is no doubt that a knowledge – implicit or explicit – of grammatical rules is essential for the mastery of a language.”
  

(Penny Ur, a teacher trainer, and author of Grammar Practice Activities)

• 
  “The effects of grammar teaching ... appear to be peripheral and fragile.”
  

(Stephen Krashen, an influential, if controversial, applied linguist)

• 
  “A sound knowledge of grammar is essential if pupils are going to use English creatively.”
  

(Tom Hutchinson, a course book writer)

• 
  “Grammar is not very important: The majority of languages have a very complex grammar. English has little grammar and consequently it is not very important to understand it.”
  

(From the publicity of a London language school)

• 
  “Grammar is not the basic of language acquisition, and the balance of linguistic research clearly invalidates any view to the contrary.”
  

(Michael Lewis, a popular writer on teaching methods)”
(Thornbury 2000: 14, 15)
It is apparent that differences in attitude to the role of grammar are enormous.

2. 
   Case for and against grammar
   

Thornbury gives many arguments in favour of grammar teaching and against it as well. Let me mention some of them.
The case for grammar:

• 
  The sentence-machine argument: Without grammar we cannot generate new sentences. We can only use individual items such as words and phrases.
  
• 
  The fine-tuning argument: Without knowing grammar we can do many errors which can confuse the listener or, especially reader.
  
• 
  The fossilisation argument: Learners without any formal study reach a point beyond which it is very difficult to progress, thus their linguistic competence fossilises. Research suggests that learners who receive no instruction seem to be at risk of fossilising sooner than those who do receive instruction.
  
• 
  The learner expectation argument: Many learners come to language classes with precise expectations. They want to feel that the classes are efficient and systematic. Thus, they demand grammar rules and instructions.
  

(Thornbury 2000: 15, 16, 17)
Finally, I would like to mention one more, very practical argument in favour of teaching grammar. Many students are required to pass a standardized national or international examination. A major component of such exam is grammar, which means that students have to know and apply the rules of grammar if they want to be successful.
The case against grammar:

• 
  The knowledge-how argument: Language learning can be viewed as a skill and thus language should be learned by doing it, not by studying it. This concept is called experiential learning.
  
• 
  The communication argument: Knowing grammar is not the most important thing. We have to know how to use the grammar to achieve communicative goals, and how to do this in a socially appropriate way. This means that communicating is much more important than learning grammar.
  
• 
  The acquisition argument: We should distinguish between learning and acquisition. Learning results from formal instructions, while acquisition is a natural process when the learner is exposed to the contact with speakers of the language. Learnt knowledge can never become acquired knowledge.
  
• 
  The learner expectations argument: As mentioned above, there are many learners who come to language classes in the expectation that they will be studying grammar of the language. Nevertheless, there are many others who just want to talk. This is the teacher’s job to respond sensitively to these expectations.
  

(Thornbury 2000: 18, 19, 20)
Other interesting opinion on the phenomenon in dispute is that held by Celce-Murcia and Hilles. They point out that it should also be borne in mind that students have different learning strategies or styles. They use at least two distinct strategies – analytical and holistic. Analytical learners form and test hypotheses. They need rules. Holistic learners, on the other hand, learn by exposure to the language. They do little or no analysis (Celce-Murcia & Hilles 1988: 5).
Celce-Murcia and Hilles subsequently discuss it in more detail. They claim that learning strategies are affected by age and task type. Children seem to prefer a holistic approach while the majority of adults switch to an analytical style (Celce-Murcia & Hilles 1988: 5).
It is also known that some learners prefer visually-oriented grammar instructions while others respond better to auditory input.
The discussion above has shown that the teacher should vary the approach in order to accommodate all learning styles and encourage learners to use their eyes, their ears, and as many of the other senses as possible.

2.