Oxford Training Course

The shift in ELT from grammar to lexis mirrors a similar change in the attitude of linguists. In the past linguists were preoccupied with the grammar of language; however the advances in corpus linguistics have pushed lexis to the forefront.

The term 'lexis', which was traditionally used by linguists, is a common word these days and frequently used even in textbooks.

Less grammar or more grammar?

You are, no doubt, all familiar with students who on one hand seem to know the 'rules' of grammar but still fail to produce grammatically correct sentences when speaking or, on the other, sound unnatural and foreign-like even when their sentences are grammatically correct.

Michael Lewis, who might be considered the founder of the Lexical Approach, once claimed that there was no direct relationship between the knowledge of grammar and speaking. In contrast, the knowledge of formulaic language has been shown by research to have a significant bearing on the natural language production.

Furthermore, certain grammar rules are practically impossible to learn. Dave Willis cites the grammar of orientation (which includes the notoriously difficult present perfect and the uses of certain modal verbs) as particularly resistant to teaching. The only way to grasp their meaning is through continuous exposure and use.

If grammarians do not even attempt to address all areas of grammar, how can we, practitioners, cover all the aspects of grammar in our teaching, especially if all we seem to focus on is a limited selection of discrete items, comprised mostly of tenses and a handful of modal verbs? It would seem that we need to expose our students to a lot of naturally occurring language and frequently draw their attention to various grammar points as they arise.

For example, while teaching the expression fall asleep / be asleep you can ask your students:

• Don’t make any noise – she’s fallen asleep.
  Don’t make any noise – she’s asleep.
  What does ‘s stand for in each of these cases (is or has)?

One of the fathers of the Communicative Language Teaching Henry Widdowson advocated using lexical items as a starting point and then 'showing how they need to be grammatically modified to be communicatively effective.

For example, when exploring a text with your students, you may come across a sentence like this:

• They’ve been married for seven years.
  You can ask your students: When did they get married? How should you change the sentence if the couple you are talking about is no longer married?

Grammar after lexis

English lessons in a Primary school involve teaching a lot of chunks,

such as Good morning. How are you? Where do you live?

However, as learners get older they tend to memorize less

They 'switch on' their analytical thinking and tend to break up the

language they encounter into constituent bits. Teaching materials that

separate grammar and vocabulary do not help either.

How can we assist learners in building a grammar system and, at the

same time, help them crack some 'unlearnable' rules?

Once again the key is to start with examples of language in use

presented as whole chunks without spending too much time on

structural analysis in the early stages of learning.

For example, the modal verb might with its daunting variety of uses

such as deduction, permission as well as being the past form of may is

often followed by the verb take to talk about time. It can therefore be

presented as a chunk It might take a while without attending formally to

all possible uses of might.

Such memorized chunks will later promote grammar acquisition.

Also, it is often easier to generate similar sentences from ready-made

examples rather than from formal rules. Having memorized It might

take a while, learners can later produce

It might take a long time

It might take a couple of weeks

It might take even longer

Consider another example.

The memorized pattern he isn’t easy to live with can be extended to:

isn’t easy to work with

isn’t easy to get on with

isn’t easy to deal with or later

isn’t easy to talk to

Grammar through lexis

Once I was invited to be a guest speaker in a Primary school. The fifth-graders, who must have just been taught question formation in the Past Simple, were firing questions at me: ‘Did you go to Buckingham Palace?’, ‘Did you see the Queen?’ ‘Did you visit the Tower of London’? While quite impressed with their knowledge of London sights and architectural icons I could not help but think that one day they would have to re-learn what they had been taught.

In all of the above examples it would be more natural to use the Present Perfect: Have you been to…? Have you seen…? etc. Surely there must be a more natural way of practicing the Past Simple, for instance: Did you have a nice weekend? What did you do? Did you stay at home all day?

Delaying the introduction of certain structures is an enduring legacy of structural syllabi where learning a language, particularly its grammar system, was seen as itemistic. In other words, gradually moving from an easier item to a more complex one, following a linear sequence.

I remember teaching an Intermediate course using New Headway Intermediate, which was still an unassailable authority in those days, and where the Present Perfect does not appear until the second half of the coursebook. I too stand guilty of telling my students that “they are not ready for it” because they have not fully mastered other tenses or structures.

Unfortunately, many coursebooks still carefully grade the texts to avoid any encounters with the structures that have not been formally taught. The practice of methodically expunging what may be perceived as a difficult grammar point from textbooks for fear that it might confuse the learner, is regrettable because it deprives our students of natural examples they will later need to build their understanding of this point.

Learning a language is a cyclical process and full mastery takes a long time to achieve. If we go back to our “would” example, this modal verb has a variety of uses. Apart from expressing desire mentioned above, it can be used to talk about Future in the Past, hypothetical or imaginary situations and past habits to name but a few.

Thus our elementary level students using “would like” to express desire do not have the full mastery of this complex modal verb. Yet, it does not prevent them from using it appropriately in certain situations, i.e. expressing desire. Likewise, many seemingly difficult grammar structures can be introduced to talk about specific functions or situations. Here are some more examples.

Present perfect

Rather than delaying it until the Intermediate Level, it can be introduced at the Elementary level to talk about travel:
Have you been to London / Turkey / South America?
Later on, it can be expanded to the topic of films.
Have you seen Matrix 2?

Past perfect

It can be introduced as a chunk worse than I’d expected and later extended to than I’d imagined / than I’d thought / than I’d anticipated.

These instances in no way account for all the complexities of the Present or Past Perfect but they will contribute to the understanding of the concept in the later stages of learning.

Consequently, by the time learners have come to formally deal with these structures they will have collected enough examples of them in use. Lengthy formal explanations may thus become partially redundant because students will have already internalized certain structures taught lexically.

Conclusion

So is there room for grammar instruction in the classroom? Certainly yes. But the grammar practice should always start with the exploitation of lexical items.  Exposing students to a lot of natural and contextualized examples will offer a lexical way into the grammar of the language.