readers respond

Grammar is not only a liberating force, it is a communicative resource

Anthony Bruton

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Southampton on March 17, 2014

I am very glad that Richard Cullen (E LT Journal 62/3: 22130) chose to consider the applications of the essay of Widdowson (1988) Grammar, and nonsense, and learning, which rst appeared in 1988 and then in 1990. This short article is a real gem, which should be read by all those who have an opinion about communicative language teaching (CLT). And it is opinions that this short paper will deal with because my view of the consequences of Widdowsons perspective differs considerably from Cullens. But, let me repeat and add to Cullens quotes from the Widdowson reference, reproduced in the order they appear in the original: The greater the contribution of context in the sense of shared knowledge and experience, the less need there is for grammar to augment the association of words . . . grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force; it frees us from the dependency on context and the limitations of a purely lexical categorization of reality. (p. 151) Grammar, then, can be seen as a resource for the adaptation of lexis . . . Grammar is a device for indicating the most common and recurrent aspects of meaning which it would be tedious and inefcient to incorporate into separate lexical items. (p. 151) The question is how should grammar be learned so that its intrinsic communicative character is understood and acted upon. This cannot be done by restricting attention to its formal properties, the relations and regularities which make up the internal mechanism of the device . . . Learners need to realize the function of the device as a way of mediating between words and contexts, as a powerful resource for the purposeful achievement of meaning. (p. 154) In the rst quote, Widdowson makes the point that without grammar the more reliance there is on shared knowledge or immediate mutual context, and vice versa: the more the shared knowledge and context, the more redundant or superuous is grammar. But, the crucial, underlying point is that grammar is conceived in terms of meanings not forms, or rules, as Widdowson explains more clearly in the third quote. So, the contrast here is between grammatical and lexical meaning, not between rules and words for example, or the conventional hierarchy of semantics, syntax, and phonology. This emphasis on the grammaticallexical meaning contrast is fundamental to CLT and was one also recognized
E LT Journal Volume 63/4 October 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccp048

383

The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Advance Access publication June 19, 2009

by Wilkins (1976) in the notional, not the functional, aspects of Notional Syllabusesanother must for CLTers. Communicative language exercises and tasks will always have to balance the interrelationship between grammatical and lexical meanings. But Widdowson is not saying that grammar liberates us from context. On the contrary, he is saying that it liberates us from the constraints of the immediate, or default, context. In the third quote again, the point is precisely that grammatical meaning actually contextualizes (specic) lexical meaning or that general notions situate specic ones. So, for example, the expression of deniteness through the use of a denite article in English signals to the hearer that the referent should be identiable, and similarly the expression of a particular past reference is manifested through the selection of various formal elements in the verb phrase. The central point here is that in the acquisition process, grammar has to be encountered in context, so that it can be used to create context, by contextualizing lexical meaning. In other words, there is little point in decontextualized grammar teaching, whether practical or theoretical, or whether receptive or productive. Furthermore, the context should be real to the users, so that the grammatical meaning takes on genuine signicance. The third point is somewhat different in that it does not refer directly to context. Widdowson points out that grammatical meanings are common and recurrent, to which could be added that they are also general and abstract. Instead of considering grammar in terms of forms or formulae, rules or straitjackets, and structures or patterns, the perspective adopted is on notional meanings that are frequent, repeated, less tangible, and contextual or contextualizing. It is therefore logical and necessary to attend to and recycle the realizations of those meanings that are most recurrent. One of the main shortcomings of drills and drilling was the emphasis on the forms and the patterns rather than the co-occurrence of frequent general meanings in relation to the less frequent specic meanings, within communicative contexts that required choice and selection. Inevitably, as Wilkins (1976) understood, if there is similarity in the expression of a meaning space, there will be diversity of form, which complicates acquisition. This refers to language production, but initially the language learner needs to be exposed to contextualized language exemplars in input as Krashen (2004, 2008) or VanPatten (2002) has reiterated. In the receptive mode, it is precisely the more common forms that have the greater diversity of meanings, and which have to be disambiguated meaningfully, in context. So, where do I differ from Cullen? Basically, on the importance of an emphasis on meaningful purpose in context and the types of classroom task he proposes. I did not nd any of the activities Cullen proposes particularly communicative and his rst two criteria are open to speculation. Learner choice is as relevant for lexical meaning as grammatical meaning and maybe more so. It is possible that in acquisition terms, lexical base forms are more visibly prevalent initially than syntactic features, Cullens lexis-togrammar criteria, but that does not mean that lexical choices are made in a contextual vacuum.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Southampton on March 17, 2014

384

Anthony Bruton

As for Cullens actual tasks, newspaper headlines are newspaper headlines and are understood as such. They can be eshed out, of course, but presumably they are in their original form precisely because contextually they were considered sufciently comprehensible. If the headlines are eshed out, is it the eshing out that is the point or the possible interpretations in relation to the actual news report? In the former case, such tasks are not very communicative since the target meaning is more or less understood, and the eshing out what has already been (potentially) understood: a productive task based on a receptive one. In the latter case, it is more a question of the interpretation than the eshing out, surely. The other tasks, such as sentence combining, picture compositions, or dictoglosses, are not communicative since the content is already given. Admittedly, these tasks, like the newspaper headlines, go from given lexical content to requiring grammatical elaboration or precision, but the purpose or reason for this is purely cosmetic. In order for students to use language in a reasonably realistic way, we should acknowledge what Garrett (1986) had to say: In producing utterances speakers do not start from knowledge of how the system works; they start with a thought to be communicated. What we really want to know, then, is not what mediates between knowledge about the system and utterance, but rather what mediates between thought and utterance. (p. 138) The point Garrett was making is obvious: expressing meaning is about meaning choices being converted into formal choices and their formulation into utterances. In which case, it is very possible to have students practise expressing themselves in contexts which are reasonably communicative and which have certain recurrent meanings that they need to include in order to express their own specic meanings. This is what some appropriately contextualized communicative drills were all about, but they were misunderstood as slot-llers, or pattern practisers, rather than meaning generators, because of the emphasis on the forms or structures rather than the underlying meanings. However, the readmission of the communicative drill, or rather communicative grammar exercise for practising the contextualized expression of grammatical meaning, into contemporary CLT seems to be less admissible than for example the use of the currently ubiquitous dictogloss, however uncommunicative and medium-oriented the latter might be. Maybe this tendency should be redressed, so that there is space for communicative grammar practice. Finally, although I might differ from Richard Cullen somewhat on the interpretation of the necessary relationship between communication, grammatical meaning, and context, we both agree on one essential point: the short essay by Henry Widdowson still has a lot to say and a lot more to interpret. Final revised version received April 2008
References Garrett, N. 1986. The problem with grammar: what kind can the language learner use?. The Modern Language Journal 70/2: 13348. Krashen, S. 2004. Applying the comprehension hypothesis: some suggestions. International Journal of Language Teaching 1: 219.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Southampton on March 17, 2014

Grammar is not only a liberating force, it is a communicative resource

385

Krashen, S. 2008. Language education: past, present and future. R E L C Journal 39/2: 1787. VanPatten, B. 2002. Processing instruction: an update. Language Learning 52/4: 775803. Widdowson, H. G. 1988. Grammar, and nonsense, and learning in W. Rutherford and M. Sharwood Smith (eds.). Grammar and Second Language Teaching. New York: Newbury House. Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The author Anthony Bruton teaches language use and lectures on language teaching and research methods at the University of Seville, Spain. He also directs a group researching the learning of EF L in state secondary schools. Email: abruton@siff.us.es

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Southampton on March 17, 2014

386

Anthony Bruton