CHAPTER 1

Three reasons why

Dave Willis
Language teaching and learning aim at practical outcomes in the real world, not simply
at classroom outcomes. If we want to show that a feature of language has been taught
or learned it is not enough to show that a learner can produce it under artificial con-
ditions, in a grammar test for example, or as a controlled response to a teachers
question. We need to see that it has become a consistent part of the learners language
repertoire, that the learner can use it consistently as part of an act of communication.
If we take this as the yardstick, then the findings of research into second language
acquisition suggest that there is no direct link between teaching and learning (see, for
example, Skehan 1998: 9495). Learners may, for example, have a conceptual under-
standing of the use of past tense forms when their attention is focused on producing
the required form but, at the same time, they may fail to produce these forms when they
are using language spontaneously. The conclusion from the research is that we should
recognize that the relationship between teaching and learning is indirect. Even if a form
is understood and produced under controlled circumstances this does not guarantee
that learners will be able to use it.
It is, however, comfortable for teachers and teacher educators, and for the writers
and publishers of teaching materials, to maintain that there is a direct relationship
between teaching and learning. For teachers and teacher educators this belief offers
security. It suggests that we know exactly what we are doing and where we are going.
We can plan lessons and recommend methodologies with confidence. For writers and
publishers it means that they can make clear, unqualified claims in terms of teaching
and learning for the materials they produce. There is, then, built in resistance to the
notion that learning is, at best, indirect. The inconvenient arguments from second
language acquisition (SLA) are rejected on the grounds that they are unscientific, or that
the work on which they rest is carried out under experimental rather than classroom
conditions, or that one study often contradicts another with respect to the details, or
that they are too diffuse to offer a firm basis for a teaching programme. But the fact that
almost all the research points in the same direction casts doubt on these criticisms.
For my part I believe that the overall findings of SLA research are convincing. They
reinforce my experience in the classroom. I am horribly familiar with the situation in
which learners can produce a language form under controlled conditions, but cannot
produce the same form spontaneously. In this chapter I will argue, taking language
description as a starting point, that there are two good reasons why we should recognize
that the link between teaching and learning is bound to be indirect. I will then go on
to cite Widdowson (1979) to suggest a third reason for this phenomenon.
CONTENTS
Complexity and the
grammar of
orientation 7
Pattern grammar:
extent and
coverage 8
Building a meaning
system 10
Conclusions 10
References 11
In: Hunston, S. and D. Oakey (2010) Introducing Applied Linguistics,
Concepts and Skills, Routledge

There is an important aspect of the grammar of English that shows, among other
things, how elements in the message are related to one another in space and time, and
whether or not a participant in a text is identifiable by the receiver. I will call this the
grammar of orientation (see Willis 2003). In part this is carried by systems often referred
to as deictic, in particular the tense system and the determiner system. Beyond this we
have grammatical devices and conventions such as the passive voice and cleft forms
which enable us to build coherent text. Such devices enable us to mark which elements
of a text are given and which are new and how the propositions carried in the clauses
and sentences in the text relate to one another logically.
From the teaching and learning point of view the problem with these grammatical
devices is that they are extremely complex. Hughes and McCarthy (1998), for example,
cite a generally accepted pedagogic generalization that the past perfect tense is used for
an event that happened in past time before another past time. This may or may not be
a useful generalization. It is certainly one that most teachers will have used at some
stage, but it is most certainly an oversimplification. Hughes and McCarthy point out
that the rule will enable learners to produce the well-formed sentences I spoke to Lisa
Knox yesterday for the first time. I had met her 10 years ago but had not spoken to her. But
they then go on to point out that this rule does not show that the two sentences would
be equally well formed if the second were in the past simple. It does not, in other words,
show learners that they often have to choose between the two forms according to subtle
differences in the intended meaning.
There is a further complication that Hughes and McCarthy do not point out. A
careful application of the rule would lead learners to produce some forms such as I
opened the door when the postman had knocked, which are distinctly odd, if not ungram-
matical. It is virtually impossible to frame a rule which will enable learners to make an
appropriate choice between the past simple and present perfect in all contexts. Hughes
and McCarthy go on to draw the conclusion that:
The rule, therefore . . . does not offer sufficiently precise guidelines to generate the choice
when appropriate. In situations such as this our proposal is to look at the choices that
real speakers and writers have made in real contexts and consider the contextual features
that apparently motivated one choice or the other.
(Hughes and McCarthy 1998: 268)
Contextual features and speakers choice tend to be rather more subtle than hard and
fast rules. Let us look briefly at the use of the definite and indefinite articles for example.
The usual pedagogic generalization is that when something is first mentioned it is
preceded by the indefinite article. Subsequent mentions are preceded by the definite
article. Look at the following texts:
A: Police were last night searching for the eight-year-old who attempted to hold up
a sweet shop with a pistol.
A boy, wearing a balaclava, threw a carrier bag at a shop keeper at a corner store in
Ashton-under-Lyme, and ordered her to fill it up.
Three reasons why 7
Complexity
and the
grammar of
orientation

B: The Police were last night searching for an eight-year-old who attempted to hold
up a sweet shop with a pistol.
The boy, wearing a balaclava, threw a carrier bag at the shop keeper at a corner store
in Ashton-under-Lyme, and ordered her to fill it up.
One of these is a bona fide newspaper article taken from the upmarket Guardian
newspaper of 22 February 1994. The other has been doctored, replacing the with a in
certain places and vice versa. The question is: which is the original article? The answer
is that the first article is genuine, the second is doctored. But both are perfectly gram-
matical even though the article use is quite different. The reason is that the two
paragraphs exploit the article system in different ways. The first article shifts unusually
from referring to the eight-year-old in the first sentence to referring to a boy in the
second sentence, just the opposite of what one would normally expect. The writer has
chosen to think of the eight-year-old as defined by the post-modifying clause who
attempted to hold up a sweet shop and has therefore gone for the definite article. By
choosing the indefinite article in the second sentence the writer is announcing that he
is about to commence a narrative, taking this as a new starting point. The second text
adopts the more usual strategy of using a for the first mention of the boy and the for
the second mention. In this text the shopkeeper is seen as defined by the post-modifying
phrase at a corner store.
What this shows us is that we cannot give hard and fast rules about the uses of the
articles. We can make useful generalizations about first and second mentions. For
example the opening sentence Police were last night searching for the eight-year-old who
attempted to hold up the sweet shop with the pistol would almost certainly be regarded
as ungrammatical. But hard and fast rules may simply get in the way of learners
acquiring the ability to exploit the meaning potential of the system to its full. Rules are
only a starting point in the learning process. Learners must go beyond the rules to an
understanding of how the system is exploited to create text. Rules do not exist to dis-
tinguish grammatical from ungrammatical sentences. They are there to be exploited in
the creation of meaning.
Francis et al. (1996, 1998) and Hunston and Francis (2000) explore the phenomenon
of pattern grammar. Pattern grammar points to a predictable relationship between
words and meanings. The preposition about, for example, has three basic meanings:
1 Concerning a particular subject: Think about it; I read a book about that recently.
2 Approximately: It takes about two hours to drive to London; Itll cost about a hundred
quid.
3 To indicate spatial orientation: We spent the morning walking about town; Im just
looking about.
Each of these meanings is likely to be found in association with particular sets of
words. Meaning 1 is associated with verbs of speaking and thinking such as read, think,
talk and forget. The preposition about also goes with nouns denoting items which com-
municate such as book, article, story and programme and acts of communication such
8 Dave Willis
Pattern
grammar:
extent and
coverage

as advice, agreement and opinion. We also find adjectives which describe attitudes
towards information, states or events, such as happy, pleased or sorry. With meaning
2 we find numbers such as a hundred and measurements such as a kilometre, an hour
or four litres. With meaning 3 we have phrases such as hanging about, waiting about
and sitting about.
Francis et al. (1996) list around 30 prepositions (about, as, at, between, by, for etc.)
which feature in patterns with verbs. They list around 25 similar words as featuring with
nouns and 15 with adjectives. They also list a number of patterns with verbs, nouns or
adjectives followed by that or wh-words.
There are then a limited number of words around which a very large number of
patterns are built. If we think of the first meaning of about, for example, Francis et al.
(1996) list over 120 words associated with this meaning, ranging from very frequent
words such as ask, know, talk and think, which would be found in any elementary
course, through to words such as quibble and whinge, which might not be found even
at the most advanced level.
Some prepositions are much less predictable in their patterning than the word
about. Francis et al. (1996) identify 20 semantic groups of verbs followed by the
preposition for. These cover, for example, THE PLAN GROUP (plan, arrange, provide
etc.); THE COMPENSATE GROUP (compensate, pay, apologize etc.); THE SEARCH
GROUP (search, look, hunt, shop, listen etc.). Further examples are THE WORK
GROUP (act, fight, play, speak etc.); THE ARGUE GROUP (pray, speak, vote) and THE
CARE GROUP (feel, grieve etc.). So for is more complex in its relationships than about,
but it is still possible to make useful generalizations about the verbs followed by for.
Although the 20 semantic categories identified by Francis et al. represent useful gen-
eralizations they are, perhaps, more precise than we need for an initial pedagogic
exploration. For example the PLAN, COMPENSATE and SEARCH groups might all be
seen as answering the question why? If someone apologizes for lateness or plans for an
emergency, the noun lateness or emergency explains the reason for the apology or the
planning. The nouns following the WORK, ARGUE and CARE groups can all be seen
as answering the question Who benefits? or Who wants or needs . . .? who needs praying
for or fighting for or grieving for? The important point is that it is possible to make
useful generalizations about the verbs followed by for by grouping them semantically.
We can then begin at an elementary level by exploring the basic meanings of the
preposition for:
Why? She was waiting for a friend. What are they for? For example . . . Look for more
ideas.
Who wants or needs? Can you spell your name for me? Ill do that for you. This is for
you.
and also:
Time: He paused for a moment. They are out for the afternoon.
Distance: We walked for three miles.
Three reasons why 9

We can then at a later stage show how these meanings relate systematically to groups
of verbs, nouns and adjectives, and we can design teaching activities to focus on these
systems. But in doing these things we need to recognize that we are doing no more than
giving useful guidelines. It still remains for learners to sort out these categories for
themselves. They may, for example, have quite different ways of categorizing for, taking
account of their first language.
The important point to recognize here is that the extent of this learning task is such
that we can never cover all the words that are likely to be found in a particular pattern.
We can simply give useful starting points and encourage learners to look at the language
for themselves, to process critically the text that they come across and to draw useful
conclusions from it.
So far I have cited two reasons why learning is not directly related to teaching. First, I have
argued that some aspects of the grammar, such as the tense and the article systems, are
simply too subtle to explain. We can offer useful generalizations, but we must also rely on
learners exploring the language for themselves. And we must take care that we do not
shackle that exploration by offering hard and fast rules which are in danger of inhibiting
learner exploration. Second, I have argued, giving pattern grammar as an example, that
some systems are so extensive that it is impossible to offer complete coverage. Again we can
offer useful hints, but must then depend on learners exploring language for themselves.
There is a third reason for the gap between learning and teaching. If we see learning
as being measured by the ability to produce more and more of the sentences sanctioned
by the target language, then perhaps we should not be surprised if learners do not
always reproduce faithfully what they have been taught. As soon as learners begin to use
the language, they are concerned with operating a meaning system. Widdowson (1979:
197) argues that:
[Errors] take place because the learner attempts to adjust the language he is learning to
make it an effective instrument of communication . . . Errors are the result of the learners
attempt to convert his linguistic usage into communicative use.
Widdowson refers here to the gap between linguistic usage (the learners knowledge of
language forms) and communicative use (the learners ability to deploy the language
in communication). An example would be where the learner is aware of the form of do-
questions but under the pressure of producing language in real time fails to incorporate
them into spontaneous production. The same applies initially to past tense forms. They
are known but not used. It takes time before learners can incorporate newly
encountered forms within their spontaneous production. As they are working towards
this they operate a simplified system, one which they can deploy in real time.
We have then two necessary characteristics of the language learning process relating to
the nature of language as system:

Some language systems are so complex that they cannot be taught or consciously
learned. They must be acquired by contact with the language in use.
10 Dave Willis
Building a
meaning
system
Conclusions

Some language systems are so extensive that it is impossible to offer anything like
complete coverage of them. We can simply offer learners useful starting points and
leave them to flesh out the systems from exploratory contact with the language.
Third, we have the necessity of seeing the language in the learners terms as a meaning
system rather than a system of wordings. Taking these together we have three reasons
why we need to accept that learning a language is a complex process which cannot be
controlled by the teacher, and cannot be consciously controlled by the learner.
As teachers we can offer learners useful generalizations about language, but we need
to recognize that all we are doing is equipping the learner to explore the language more
productively. The language system is so complex and so extensive and varied that we
can never offer a full pedagogic description. This means that we need to offer learners
ample exposure to language. Only through this exposure can they find opportunities
to sift through the complexities and the extent of the language system. At the same time
we need to offer learners ample opportunities to use the language. Wordings are a
means to an end, not an end in itself. Only by wide experience of language in use can
learners refine their meaning system. And only by refining their meaning system do
they create the need for more precise wordings and so find reasons to develop their
grammar.
There are, then, three good reasons why exposure to language and opportunities for
language use are absolutely central to language learning. Teaching is preparatory and
supplementary, but is necessarily subordinate to the natural processes by which the
learner develops a meaning system.
Francis G., Hunston S. and Manning E. 1996. Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London:
HarperCollins.
1998. Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.
Hughes R. and McCarthy M. 1998. From sentence to discourse: Discourse Grammar and
English Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 32/2.
Hunston S. and Francis G. 2000. Pattern Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Skehan P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Widdowson H. 1979. Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
Willis D. 2003. Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching.
Cambridge: CUP.
Three reasons why 11
References