Introduction chapter one peculiarities of communicative aspects and some approaches in teaching grammar I

In conclusion, the ultimate goal of teaching grammar is to provide the students with knowledge of the way language is constructed so that when they listen, speak, read and write, they have no trouble applying the language that they are learning. Language teachers are, therefore, challenged to use creative and innovative attempts to teach grammar so that such a goal can successfully be achieved. In other words, whatever exercises are given, the most crucial thing is that the teacher provide the students with an opportunity to be able to produce the grammatical item making use of syntactically and semantically correct examples of sentences comprised of appropriate and relevant vocabulary.

CONCLUSION
The role of grammar in communicative langauge teaching" suggests an uneasy relationship between two elements: namely, grammar on the one hand, and communication on the other. From what has been read before it is realized that without rules there is chaos. Grammar is merely a set of rules to preserve the written word. Without these standards there would be no continuity of language and over time communication of ideas would suffer. As people from different parts of the world try to talk in English which is influenced by their own mother tongue, there are errors in grammar and sentence pattern. If one can master grammar, He or She can unlock ideas and thoughts that were written across time and place. Proper grammar is very important. Correct grammar keeps from being misunderstood and lets us effectively express our thoughts and ideas. The way we communicate is extremely important in our profession and society. While modern technology and social media have less formal forms of communication, we are expected to produce perfect grammar in professional settings. Glaring errors in spellings and punctuation are judged before the content of the work. Grammar gives language users the control of expression and communication in everyday life. Mastery over the words help speakers communicate their emotions and purpose more effectively. Even though changes in grammar are made from old to contemporary, grammar can change its shape according to the trend but the importance or the role played by grammar still remains the same. In my remarks I hope to dispel some of the misunderstandings that promote its continuing existence. But, before I address the role that grammar has played in the history of second language teaching, I'd like to first explore the nature of grammar: What is it? Linguists define grammar as a set of components: phonetics (the production and perception of sounds), phonology (how sounds are combined), morphology (the study of forms, or how elements are combined to create words), syntax (how words are strung together into sentences), and semantics or meaning. Because all languages are characterized by these components, by definition, language does not exist without grammar. However, grammar has not always been defined in these terms. Originally, the term grammar, grammatica, referred to the art of writing, as compared to rhetoric, rettorica, the art of speaking. As used today by many teachers and learners, grammar is loosely understood to be a set of rules that govern language, primarily its morphology and syntax. But morphology and syntax are only two components of grammar. Communicative language teaching has brought a renewed emphasis on the role that semantics plays in the definition of language. Communicative language teaching is fundamentally concerned with 'making meaning' in the language, whether by interpreting someone else's message, expressing one's own, or negotiating when meaning is unclear. Viewing grammar with all of its components helps us as language teachers understand the complexity of what it means to know the grammar of a language. Clearly, the goal of language learning in the communicative classroom is for learners to acquire the grammar of the second language in its broadest sense, to enable them to understand and make meaning; that is, to become proficient users of the second language. Research and experience have shown that explicit teaching of grammatical rules, even if we were able to formulate them all, does not produce such competence. How, then, should grammar be taught? You may have noticed that I said that communicative language teaching has brought a renewed emphasis to the role of semantics, especially in the early stages of instruction. What I will do now is demonstrate that the goal of developing learners' functional competence in a second language, the goal of communicative language teaching, is not a new idea: it has existed for at least the past five hundred years. And a look at the history of second language teaching will reveal characteristics of pedagogy that have been known to promote functional language competence as well as explain why language teachers have not had access to that pedagogy. While we are all aware of the status that English currently enjoys as a world language, an international system of communication, it has held that position for a relatively short time. At the beginning of this century, linguists lamented the loss of the only world language that they had known: Latin, and they could not fathom that another language would ever take its place. You see, the rediscovery of the classics during the Renaissance resulted in more than an information explosion in academia; and fluency in Latin represented much more than the ability to edit manuscripts: Latin was a language of considerable usefulness as the language of culture and wider communication, and therefore power. In other words, the reasons for learning Latin in the fifteenth century were not very different from learning English today, in the age of the Global Village. The importance of acquiring communicative competence in Latin dramatically affected language teaching. An entirely new curriculum was created: the studia humantatis (literally, the study of humanity) in which the goal of learning Latin shifted from the preparation of students who could accurately copy manuscripts or compose in imitation of classical authors to the study of what those authors had to say, in Latin. Far from imparting an aesthetic appreciation alone, the revival of learning was understood to be a practical education. That is, learning the second language through contact with excellent linguistic models and meaningful interaction with interesting, relevant subject matter, a recommendation in perfect harmony. So far, we have presented an historical perspective on second language teaching that is not well known, but that supports many tenets of communicative language teaching, and especially resembles what we know of today as content-based instruction. What of the other perspective, the one that Comenius so soundly condemns? For despite the similarities in beliefs held by the historical reformers, teaching practice looked in many cases entirely different: classroom instruction consisted of memorization of rules, repetition, drill, an early emphasis on linguistic accuracy coupled with a strong measure of error correction, and the postponement of subject matter teaching until the grammar had been 'mastered.' One may well question why such practice persisted when it did not produce functional competence. The answer to that question lies in part in how the stances of the reformers were conveyed in pedagogical treatises, the language teaching manuals of their time. In each instance, those who sought to capture the reformers' ideas, their innovations in teaching practice, for future generations of language teachers grossly distorted those ideas. In teaching, the fact that verb tenses are formed according to a general rule is of utmost importance... To such an extent that in the blink of an eye they can distinguish a noun from a verb and the tenses of the verbs. They will soon arrive at the point where they can respond accurately to frequent interrogations by the teacher. Then, little by little, they will come in contact with the authors, starting with the easiest prose writers because you don't want to wear them out by the profundity of the content at the expense of practicing the rules that they have learned. The rules, first and foremost, are what we consider the most important thing of all. First the teacher will go through the subject both in Latin and in the vernacular; secondly he will so interpret each sentence that the vernacular explanation will be given immediately after the Latin; in the third place going through it again from the beginning, he will select words by twos and threes of which he will explain the force and the derivation. What of the little session following the lecture, in which small groups of students discuss it content and negotiate the meaning among themselves? In the Ratio is is described as follows: After the lecture, let him [the teacher] remain in the classroom or near the classroom for at least a quarter of an hour so that the students may approach him to ask questions, so that he may sometimes ask an account of the lectures, and so that the lectures may be repeated. In each lesson, after the teacher has briefly gone through the work that has been prepared, and has explained the meanings of the words, one of the pupils should be allowed to rise from his place and repeat what has just been said in the same order (just as if he were the teacher of the rest), to give his explanations in the same words, and to employ the same examples, and if he make a mistake he should be corrected. Then another can be called up and made go through the same performance while the rest listen. After him a third, a fourth, and as many as are necessary, until it is evident that all have understood the lesson and are in a position to explain it. In carrying this out great care should be taken to call up the clever boys first, in order that, after their example, the stupid ones may find it easier to follow. We seem to have a dual tradition in second language teaching: namely, a theoretical stance that views language above all as a rich and complex system of human communication that is best acquired through meaningful interaction with interesting content as opposed to a pedagogical practice that insists on accuracy, explicit instruction in rules, and rote learning of grammatical forms. Five hundred years of experience is ample testimony that true change in institutional practice is difficult to effect; but it is especially so if we--as agents of change--don't make clear what it is that constitutes the innovation. By discussing the role of grammar, it is my hope that this teleconference will function as the first of many long overdue steps in clearing up misunderstandings of the type that we have witnessed in the history of our profession and, thus, bring practice more in line with theory, research, and centuries of experience.