What should be explicit in explicit grammar instruction?
-
Noriko Nagai
Noriko Nagai received her Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Michigan. She is currently teaching English and linguistics at Ibaraki University in Japan. Her research interests include criterial features of English lexicon and grammar within the framework of the CEFR.
,
Seiki Ayano
Seiki Ayano received his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Durham. He is currently teaching English and linguistics at Mie University in Japan. His research interests include a variety of topics on comparative syntax.
Keiko Okada is a professor in the Department of Economics and coordinates courses in English for General Academic Purposes at Dokkyo University in Japan. Her research interests include curriculum and materials development in TESOL.
Takayuki Nakanishi received his Ed. D. in TESOL from Temple University. He is an associate professor at Dokkyo University in Japan. His current research topics include willingness to communicate, language testing, and extensive reading.
Abstract
This article proposes an approach to explicit grammar instruction that seeks to develop metalinguistic knowledge of the L2 and raise L2 learners’ awareness of their L1, which is crucial for the success of second language acquisition (Ellis 1997, 2002). If explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction (Norris and Ortega 2000), the question is what is to be taught explicitly. Research in theoretical linguistics enables us to define what specific metalinguistic knowledge underlies certain lexical items and grammar constructions. The present study illustrates this by using simple sentential constructions that are regarded as A2 grammatical features according to Hawkins and Filipović (2012). B1-level Japanese learners of English tend to omit objects (Objs) of different types, when producing simple A2-level sentences. We attribute this problem to two linguistic factors. First, verbal argument structure that defines what elements, e.g., subject (Sbj), Obj and other obligatory sentential elements, are required to appear with a given verb. Second, English and Japanese differ with respect to the omission of required element(s). This study claims that metalinguistic knowledge of argument structure and overt versus covert realization of arguments in the two languages should be explicitly taught through structure-based tasks. We propose two different sets of such tasks: (i) instruction that focuses on lexical properties by presenting verbal argument structure and then requiring students to engage in grammaticality judgment and controlled written production tasks; (ii) instruction that focuses on language-particular features by giving students consciousness-raising tasks in L1, consciousness-raising tasks that compare and contrast L1 and L2, controlled-writing tasks, and free-writing tasks with corrective feedback.
Funding statement: Funding: The research for this article was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan (#25370617).
About the authors
Noriko Nagai received her Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Michigan. She is currently teaching English and linguistics at Ibaraki University in Japan. Her research interests include criterial features of English lexicon and grammar within the framework of the CEFR.
Seiki Ayano received his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Durham. He is currently teaching English and linguistics at Mie University in Japan. His research interests include a variety of topics on comparative syntax.
Keiko Okada is a professor in the Department of Economics and coordinates courses in English for General Academic Purposes at Dokkyo University in Japan. Her research interests include curriculum and materials development in TESOL.
Takayuki Nakanishi received his Ed. D. in TESOL from Temple University. He is an associate professor at Dokkyo University in Japan. His current research topics include willingness to communicate, language testing, and extensive reading.
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the 13th International CercleS Conference held in Fribourg. We thank the audience and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We would also like to thank Marcel Van Amelsvoort for stylistic improvement of this article. Needless to say, all the remaining inadequacies and errors are ours.
References
Akakura, Motoko. 2012. Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge . Language Teaching Research 16(1). 9–37.10.1177/1362168811423339Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Carroll, Susanne & Merril Swain. 1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(3). 357–386.10.1017/S0272263100012158Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert M. 1998. Beyond focus on form. In Catherine Doughty & Jessica Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition, 42–63. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Doughty, Catherine & Michael Long. 2003. Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning . Forum of International Development Studies 23. 35–73.Search in Google Scholar
Dulay, Heidi C. & Marina K. Burt. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23(2). 245–258.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ek, J. A. van & John L. M. Trim. 1991. Threshold 1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 1997. SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2001. Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2002. Grammar teaching – practice or consciousness-raising? In Jack C. Richards & Willy A. Renandya (eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 167–174. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667190.023Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Felix, Sascha W. 1981. The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition . Language Learning 31(1). 87–112.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01374.xSearch in Google Scholar
Flynn, Suzanne. 1996. A parameter setting approach to second language acquisition. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 121–158. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50006-2Search in Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki. 1995. The principles-and-parameters approach: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In Masashoshi Shibatani & Theodora Bynon (eds.), Approaches to language typology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan H. Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum & Ivan A. Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Language typology. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Birgit & Merrill Swain. 1984. The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In Alan Davies, Clive Criper & Anthony P. R. Howatt (eds.), Interlanguage, 291–311. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. & Luna Filipović. 2012. Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar . Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.10.4324/9781315880259-11Search in Google Scholar
Krashen, Stephen. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Search in Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shigeyuki. 1979. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. New York & London: Garland Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Lapkin, Sharon, Doug Hart & Merrill Swain. 1991. Early and middle French immersion programs: French-language outcomes . Canadian Modern Language Review 48(1). 11–40.10.3138/cmlr.48.1.11Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lightbown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada. 2013. How languages are learned, 4th edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mackey, Alison, Rhonda Oliver & Jennifer Leeman. 2003. Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads . Language Learning 53(1). 35–6610.1111/1467-9922.00210Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nassaji, Hossein & Sandra Fotos. 2011. Teaching grammar in second language classrooms. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203850961Search in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. Paul. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. Paul. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524759Search in Google Scholar
Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis . Language Learning 50(3). 417–528.10.1111/0023-8333.00136Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport, Malka & Beth Levin. 1988. What to do with theta-roles. In Wendy Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and semantics: Thematic relations. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Samuda, Virginia & Martin Bygate. 2008. Tasks in second language learning. London, UK: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230596429Search in Google Scholar
Schimitt, Norbert. 2008. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schimitt, Norbert & Michael McCarthy. 1998. Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie D. 1993. On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2). 147–163.10.1017/S0272263100011931Search in Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Susan Gass & Carolyn Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- The Common European Framework of Reference down under: A survey of its use and non-use in Australian universities
- C2+-DaF-Lernende reflektieren über eine perfekte Sprachbeherrschung – ist diese vor dem Hintergrund der postulierten funktionalen Mehrsprachigkeit in Alltag und Beruf künftig noch gefragt?
- The habitat factor in ELF(A) – English as a Lingua Franca (in Academic settings) – and English for Plurilingual Academic Purposes
- “Improvisation is not allowed in a second language”: A survey of Italian lecturers’ concerns about teaching their subjects through English
- What should be explicit in explicit grammar instruction?
- Approaches to assessment in CLIL classrooms: Two case studies
- Integrated learner support through language advising: Initial experiences and considerations at Padova University Language Centre
- Enhanced awareness and its translation into action: A case study of one learner’s self-directed language learning experience
- Language centre teachers as researchers: The case of Finland
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- The Common European Framework of Reference down under: A survey of its use and non-use in Australian universities
- C2+-DaF-Lernende reflektieren über eine perfekte Sprachbeherrschung – ist diese vor dem Hintergrund der postulierten funktionalen Mehrsprachigkeit in Alltag und Beruf künftig noch gefragt?
- The habitat factor in ELF(A) – English as a Lingua Franca (in Academic settings) – and English for Plurilingual Academic Purposes
- “Improvisation is not allowed in a second language”: A survey of Italian lecturers’ concerns about teaching their subjects through English
- What should be explicit in explicit grammar instruction?
- Approaches to assessment in CLIL classrooms: Two case studies
- Integrated learner support through language advising: Initial experiences and considerations at Padova University Language Centre
- Enhanced awareness and its translation into action: A case study of one learner’s self-directed language learning experience
- Language centre teachers as researchers: The case of Finland
