Sym,,, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 245-255.

1994
Copyright 0 1994 Elwier Science Ltd
Pergamon tinted in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0346-251XM $7.00 + 0.00
0346-251X(94)EOO15-W

WRITING GRAMMAR TEXTBOOKS: THEORY AND PRACTICE

PATRICIA BYRD

Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, U.S.A.

Writers of grammar textbooks need to base their work on a combination of theory

and practical knowledge of the language-teaching classroom, meeting the needs of
both teachers and students. In preparing a grammar textbook for publication, a writer
will have to consider at least the following: the meanings possible for the phrase the
teaching of grammar, a definition for pedagogical grammar, and the usefulness of
direct and/or indirect teaching of grammar. The grammar textbook writer will also
make decisions about the influence of proficiency levels on materials selection and
use, and the selection and ordering of the materials in the textbook. In addition to
issues that are unique to writing grammar textbooks, the textbook writer will need to
consider issues in materials design more generally. Important among these broader
design issues are the perceived conflict between fluency and accuracy, process and
product, and least-to-most communicative activities.

“THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR”

In the writing and publication of grammar textbooks, authors must deal with one of the basic
puzzles of modem language teaching: some classroom teachers, second language acquisition
theorists, and language-teaching methodologists declare the teaching of grammar a useless,
old-fashioned, noncommunicative waste of student time and energy, yet grammar textbooks
make up a large segment of the market for ESL and EFL textbooks, and research articles on
features of English grammar continue to be published in journals for language-teaching
specialists.

As a result of this paradoxical situation, the first challenge for a writer of grammar texts seems
to be coming to clarity on the implications for students and teachers of the phrase the teaching
of grammar, words of many meanings. Grammar can refer to the structure of a language, to
particular approaches to the study of language and languages (transformational-generative
grammar, case grammar, universal grammar, pedagogical grammar), to usage (“he ain’t
got no . . . “), and to books or materials on a particular language (“a grammar of English”). In
my own work, I take grammar to refer to the structure of the English language as discussed
and made tangible in the studies of English by scholarly grammarians [e.g. Jespersen (1974)
and Quirk et al., (1985)] as expanded by other scholars, especially by sociolinguists,
psycholinguists, cognitive psychologists, and others who look at the English language from
points of view different from that of the grammarian [e.g. Pica (1983) on the English article
system].

245
246 PATRICIA BYRD

In this interpretation, grammar is more than syntax, for it can include structure-based aspects
of the sound system of English and issues in word formation, spelling, and pronounciation.
Grammar can even take a bow in the direction of punctuation, especially as it relates to learner
knowledge of the structure of the sentence. Most importantly, grammar is not simply structure,
but structures in use in particular contexts. Larsen-Freeman (1991) reminds us that grammar is
best seen as involving interrelationships among form (structure), meaning (semantics), and
contextualization (pragmatics). For example, a writer of academic prose will often use simple
present tense verb forms and generic noun phrases for the presentation of generalizations.
Study of this area of English grammar can focus on meaning (“generalizations”), context
(“academic writing in English”), form (“present tense and generic noun meaning”), or the
interrelationship among the three. Thus, a student learns about the English present tense while
also learning about writing generalizations, making a connection between verb form and a
fundamentally important communication type for ESL students who plan to enter a degree
program in a US college or university.

As I write materials for teachers to use with ESL students, my working definition of teaching
includes the whole range of activities undertaken by classroom teachers, including the
planning as well as the carrying out of those plans in the classroom setting. Teaching is
whatever teachers do to prepare themselves and to help their students. Teaching includes
thinking about content as well as about students and the act of teaching itself, talking with
students and colleagues, observing students in their own and their colleagues’ classes,
planning, adapting materials, and studying-along with guiding students to do various things
that lead to learning. Much of teaching occurs outside of the classroom and away from the
immediate presence of the students for whom the teacher is responsible. A great deal of
teaching is invisible to students-and to supervisors and colleagues-in the sense that they do
not see it occur and are not even in its presence when it is being done.

The definition of the teaching of grammar that lies behind the ESL grammar textbooks that I
have written with Beverly Benson recognizes the multitude of considerations and actions
carried out by teachers to provide students with ever-increasing control over the forms and the
functions of the forms that are used for communication in English. A teacher is “teaching
grammar” when she holds a conference with a student on his writing and spends time looking
with him at how punctuation helps a reader see where sentences begin and end. A teacher is
“teaching grammar” when he prepares to help his students by studying in the literature on the
English article system so that his explanations are based on a solid foundation of study rather
than on an ad hoc response to the particular errors of a few students. Teachers are “teaching
grammar” when they help students see patterns in particular examples that can help them deal
with the English they encountered outside of their ESL classroom. Teachers are “teaching
grammar” when they present the forms of irregular verbs and establish a system of study,
practice, use, and testing to encourage students to learn this material. Thus, it is the
responsibility of the textbook writer to be aware of the needs of teachers for materials that
include but go beyond the basic level of instruction and practice focused on structure.
 WRITING GRAMMAR TEXTBOOKS 247

DEFINITIONS OF “PEDAGOGICAL GRAMMAR’

Rutherford and Sharwood Smith (1988: p. 119) ask the following questions about the
definition of pedagogical grammar:

It is therefore appropriate to ask what it is that we denote by the widely used citation pedagogical
grammar (PG) because the term appears to occur with less than semantic consistency. Is PG, for
example, a discipline, a formal abstraction, or a collection of facts about a particular language? If
it is the latter, are such facts intended for digestion by curriculum designers, syllabus compilers,
teachers, or learners? Or is PG all of these things? Is it possibly more than these?

Whatever else other second language professionals include in their definitions of pedagogical
grammar, for writers of grammar texts, pedagogical grammar needs to include within its
bounds scholarly and practical discussions of how materials can be used by teachers in
classrooms with students to implement the teaching and learning of English grammar. A writer
of grammar textbooks thus works from:

(1) a body of knowledge about a particular language that is set forth in various places but
especially in enormous, many volumed “grammars” often called scholarly grammars
combined with knowledge about the ways in which linguistic forms are used for
communication in particular contexts;
(2) a set of ideas (a “theory”) about language learning (especially formal learning but also
indirect/informal learning);
(3) a set of ideas (a “theory”) about language teaching (set probably within a “theory” about
human cognition and learning more generally);
(4) a set of ideas (a “theory”) about presentation of materials to different groups of students
(how to get the attention of children, young people, adults, educated, uneducated, etc.): a
subset of the “theory” about language learning intersecting with the “theory” about language
teaching;
(5) a set of ideas (a “theory”) about the teachers who will have the responsibility to teach the
materials built on the above: what will a teacher in a US or Australian or German or Japanese
English-language program use? what are such teachers trained to use? how much time do they
have to prepare for their classes? how much knowledge do they have of English grammar and
what are their attitudes about teaching such materials?;
(6) a set of ideas (a “theory”) about how students and teachers use text materials in the
teaching, study, and learning of a second language.

Working with all of the above, the writer of grammar textbooks then prepares explanations,
examples, and exercises that combine into a coherent collection in book format, creating what
can reasonably be called a pedagogical grammar.

THE UTILITY OF THE STUDY OF GRAMMAR BY ADULT SECOND

LANGUAGE STUDENTS

If the purpose of a course is for students to learn to communicate in another language, then of
what use is any direct study of the grammar of that language? Certain students in certain
248 PATRICIA BYRD

contexts seem to learn a new language adequately for their purposes without having trained
teachers, professionally prepared materials, or formal classroom instruction. Many young
children in US public school settings seem, for example, not to need ESL teachers, materials,
or instruction. It might very well be, however, that the number who achieve academic literacy
is smaller than we used to believe before we learned about the differences between social and
academic uses of a second language (Cummins, 1980) or before we started to have non-native
speakers graduate from US high schools without English adequate for further education
because of limited skills in reading and writing academic English.

Thus, the number of people who move to advanced literacy in a second language without
formal instruction must be quite small. For adult learners with goals for academic literacy,
formal instruction in English grammar (as one part of an overall program of development of
academic communicative competence) often has the benefits listed in Table 1. Similar ideas
have been developed in Celce-Murcia (1985), Larsen-Freeman (1991), and Rutherford (1988).

One of the arguments against the teaching of grammar uses the following reasoning: we do not
yet know everything about English grammar; in fact, we can explain only a small subset of the
entire language. Since we do not yet know it all, we would be foolish to attempt to teach the
little that we do know. Such an argument brings all education to a standstill. To illustrate, we
know very little about human psychology, but it does not seem reasonable to want to end the

Table 1. Benefits of grammar study for second language students

(1) Seeing and seeking patterns
Knowledge about general patterns of English
structure helps students to analyze and interpret
English encountered away from the ESL
classroom. Additionally, for many learners,
knowledge of a “rule” expands their ability to
create utterances and sentences to fit their own
meanings.

(2) Planning based on knowledge Knowledge about the range of possibilities for
English helps students formulate plans for
continued growth of their English.

(3) Learning in a timely manner
Teachers provide many learners not just with
encouragement but with a structure that pushes, if
not forces, them to take the time necessary to
learn particular items (irregular verbs, for
example).

(4) Learning the important A well-conceived grammar program can help

students focus on issues of importance and to
move more quickly to fluent accuracy in English.

(5) Developing accuracy and Knowledge about particular aspects of

learning to monitor English, especially those that are troublesome,
can be used in editing and other situations that
allow for monitoring and self-correction.
 WRITING GRAMMAR TEXTBOOKS 249

teaching of what we do know. Another version of that argument says that the grammar of any
language is enormously complex and extensive-look at the size of A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. We cannot possibly ever teach all of that; therefore we are
foolish to attempt to teach any of that. Again, acceptance of this argument brings all attempts
at education to a halt because no teacher of anything will ever be able to teach all of it.

A more serious consideration is the nearly absolute separation between “learning” and
“acquisition” posited by Krashen (1982) with its attendant ideas: (1) that direct teaching about
the language does not lead to acquisition of fluency in the language, and (2) that self-
monitoring interferes with fluency and can be done well only by a limited number of students
in restricted circumstances. In its most extreme versions, such a vision of language learning
leaves no place for practice, gives no value to abstract knowledge about the forms and
processes that make up the grammar of a language, and brings into doubt the value of
classroom instruction in a language. However, research and discussion influenced by cognitive
psychology [e.g. McLaughlin (1990) and O’Malley and Chamot (1990)] are providing another
possible interpretation of the development of complex skills, such as human communication
through language, that includes a role for structured practice and the use of “rules” as steps in
the process of language learning. In addition, many teachers in many fields, from piano
teachers and football coaches to biologists and chemists with their lab studies, have found
relationships among drilled practice, simulated performance, and the real performance itself.

In sum, there are reasons to consider the study of grammar useful to many adult students
(especially in academic-preparation ESL programs) if we are clear that by “study of grammar”
we mean much more than rule learning and rote drilling. In addition, the lack of instruction
and study of form is now causing growing concern (Pienemann, 1988) over the poor literacy
skills of students who have studied in programs that emphasize fluency without development
of accuracy. A similar concern has developed among those who work with international
teaching assistants in US research universities, advanced users of English in their reading and
to some extent in their writing who receive large amounts of comprehensible input without
automatically developing advanced speaking skills that combine accuracy with fluency (Janet
Constantinides, personal communication, 18 February 1993). Experience and research are
coming together to provide a basis for a reformulation of the interrelated roles of knowledge of
grammar and direct instruction in the teaching and learning of second languages.

After years of thinking about the purposes and methods for the teaching of grammar and
listening to complaints and concerns about the ways in which the “teaching of grammar” is
conducted, I have realized that many of the condemnations of the “teaching of grammar” are,
in fact, discussions of problems with a particular approach to classroom activities along with a
particular approach to the designing of the content of those activities: mindless grammar drills
arranged in a grammar-based order that controls the flow of the study of the language over the
time for the course, or to use the jargon of our field teacher-fronted drilling based on the
grammatical syllabus. The definition of the teaching of grammar detailed above certainly
recognizes the usefulness of such an approach for certain students in certain classes but
expands the teaching of English grammar to include explanations, examples, and exercises that
approach the learning of form from many different angles.
250 PATRICIABYRD

DIRECT VS INDIRECT TEACHING OF GRAMMAR

Various approaches to directness of attention to grammar can be taken for the development of
grammar materials that can help students learn to communicate accurately as well as fluently
in English. At times, a teacher places an issue of English grammar squarely on the table:
“today we are going to work with your choices for verbs when you are writing about past time
events.” In these situations, the teacher and the student discuss, think about, practice, and
otherwise focus on structure, all the while floating back and forth between awareness of
patterns and awareness of meaning.

The learning of grammar can also be a hidden agenda item in a particular class, as when the
teacher has students tell or write stories from their cultures or countries. The activity forces
students to make decisions about the formation of verbs, the selection of adverbs, and the
structure of sentences, but the primary purpose of the lesson is the sharing of stories with the
correctness of grammar as a vitally important side issue: getting the forms right means that the
story is told in the best possible manner.

Surely there are also many classes in which grammar is not an issue at all as teacher and
students carry out any one of a multitude of activities aimed at other purposes.

The point here is that materials in a grammar textbook, too, can approach grammar content
from at least these three points of view: (1) open, overt attention to some aspect of English
grammar; (2) indirect attention to grammar while carrying out some communicative task; and
(3) no attention to grammar issues at all. Having no grammar teaching purpose does not mean
that certain content and activities should automatically be excluded from a grammar textbook.
For example, a grammar textbook could easily include materials on learning and study styles
and skills to provide the teacher with materials and activities aimed at improving the students’
abilities to be successful language learners (see Table 2 for examples of each of these
categories).

LEARNING AT DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS

Education is a pyramid with a huge base of beginners and a much smaller number of advanced
learners: there are many more first graders than doctoral students in all systems of education
everywhere. This generalization applies equally well to foreign language education in the US
and to the teaching of EFL in non-English-speaking countries. Perhaps because of the
influence of foreign language educators and of EFL, discussions of second language
acquisition and language-teaching methodology often focus primarily on the initial stages of
language learning. In contrast, the essential problem of English-for-Academic-Purpose
programs for adult students in the US is to move students from intermediate to advanced-or
advanced enough to begin a degree program-in intensive study concentrated into a few
months prior to or immediately upon a student’s entering a degree program in a college or
university. (With the growth of refugee and immigrant populations, this picture should be
expanded to include very large ESL programs, especially at community colleges, aimed at
 WRITING GRAMMAR TEXTBOOKS 251

Table 2. Annroaches to grammar content

Approach Examples of activities

Open, overt (1) Review forms of irregular verbs by having students analyze a chart of the
attention most common forms to see what words they do not yet know or do not yet
have complete control over
(2) Analysis of examples to see how particular forms are used in particular
contexts-past tense verbs in narratives or case studies
(3) Presentation of word order for questions with practice during which
students try asking each other questions

Indirect (1) Writing of narratives with initial concern about the content but with later
attention editing for form
(2) Analysis of case studies from management texts with primary attention to
the ways in which such materials are used in business administration courses
(learning to see possible alternatives, basing recommendations on data, etc.)
but with later observation of the grammatical characteristics of the case (use of
past tense for narrative style, for example)
(3) Discussion of the culturally appropriate questions that can be used in
various contexts: what questions can you ask a person when you first meet
her/him? Practice of these questions would focus primarily on content but also
on form
(4) Discussion of the content of a reading that might later be used for
grammar activities

No attention to (1) Work with study skills

grammar at all (2) Work with learning strategies that students already use and other
possibilities that might be helpful in language study

non-native speaking students who are graduates of US high schools. But the point is still the
same: these students are not beginners. Our theory of language teaching and learning must
deal with the goal of moving these students-as well as traditional “foreign” students-to
adequate academic literacy in the shortest possible time.) That is, how do intermediate and
advanced students move to higher levels of proficiency? Is fluency in spoken English an
adequate goal for students who will participate in academic study at US colleges and
universities?

The place of the teaching of grammar in a communicative approach to language learning

might perhaps be viewed as changing as students improve their proficiency. It may well be
that rule-based study is especially useful during the early stages of language learning when the
beginner is grasping for understanding of the flow of the new language. However, even native
speakers find that there are some aspects of advanced literacy that require monitoring of output
in the editing stages of the writing process; for example, rule-based behavior continues for
many of us in the punctuation of written English. In other contexts, too, such as the formal
presentation of a research paper at a professional conference, native speakers monitor some
aspects of their language output.
252 PATRICIA BYRD

SELECTION AND ORDERING OF MATERIALS FOR GRAMMAR TEXTBOOKS

Textbook writers have long struggled with questions about the selection and sequencing of
content as we strive for completeness and coherence in our texts. The easy first step that most
can take is to agree that the sequence should start with the easy things and progress in
reasonable stages to the more difficult things. What seems to be a truism, however, quickly
leads to problems because of the near impossibility of agreeing on the meaning of easy and
dzficzdt in relation to particular aspects of English grammar and to the teaching of grammar by
a particular teacher to a particular group of students. At least four combinations of ease and
difficulty in learning and explaining are possible (see Table 3).

Table 3. Ease-difficulty matrix for analysis of grammar content

Easy to explain/easy to learn
Some parts of grammar such as basic word
order are easy to explain and do not seem
to give students much trouble in learning.
Difficult to explain/easy to learn
An item of grammar can be difficult to explain
but easy to learn: scholars continue to argue
about the most appropriate way to analyze
English passive sentence and passive verb
formation but students have few problems
forming the passive (Celce-Murcia and
Hines, 1988).

Easy to explainkliicult to learn Diffkult to explain/difficult to learn

An item of grammar could be easy to The English article system exemplifies an
explain but difficult to learn: English area of grammar that is difficult to explain
subject-verb agreement, for example. as well as difficult to learn.

Since our fundamental purposes have to do with helping students to learn, we might agree that
we are seeking information about what is easy or difficult for students rather than what is easy
or difficult for grammarians and teachers. However, materials writers cannot too quickly
abandon the difficulty level for the explainer if we are going to develop effective materials that
include anything useful in the way of explanations. After all, the audience for a text includes
the teacher as well as the students. Explanations and instructions are generally aimed as much
at the teacher as at her/his students, although textbook-writing convention requires the
presentation of most materials as if the students were the only audience.

The developmental progression of learning proposed by educational psychologists as well as

by second language acquisition specialists provides both help and confusion for the teacher
and the materials specialist. None of us, it seems, learns anything until we are ready to learn it
but we participate, more or less on schedule, with general patterns of human growth: learning
seems to be defined both as an act of free will and as a biologically, socially determined urge
that is difficult to resist [e.g. McLaughlin (1990) and O’Malley and Chamot (1990)]. This
vision of learning leads materials writers to want the following information: (1) the details of
the order in which various aspects of linguistic structure are developed; (2) the circumstances
under which the development occurs; and (3) what teachers can do to help the learners achieve
the most effective, efficient learning.
 WRITING GRAMMAR TEXTBOOKS 253

Whether or not we agree on the exact nature and interrelationships between “language
acquisition” and “language learning,” we do seem to recognize at least two types of knowing
in adult language learners/users: (1) students can have full control over some aspects of the
language and so can be said to “know” that material, but (2) students might not automatically
follow a particular requirement of a language but can correct production for it. For example,
the subject-verb agreement rule might not be under full control but can be edited for in
writing. This dual ability suggests that teachers should be patiently understanding of the delay
in gaining automatic control over the feature but should not postpone teaching of it until some
later stage when students experience “subject-verb agreement readiness.” Indeed, the limited
current knowledge of various states of readiness makes it impossible for a teacher to anticipate
when any student is ready for any particular bit of learning. Moreover, it might very well be
that control comes only after periods of exposure to the feature of the language-and perhaps
even as a result of such repeated exposure (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990).

As teachers and researchers have noted, adult language learners appear to move rapidly
through some developmental stages that take children years to develop (e.g. sophistication in
reading, writing, and extensive educated vocabulary) and to stumble slowly through others that
can be achieved early on by many children (e.g. accuracy in pronunciation). That information
seems to imply that our specification of the content of a program for adults might need to
allow for rapid development of reading vocabulary and recognition of complex structures in
reading materials while moving more slowly to build fluent accuracy in their spoken English
and in their own written English. The linguistic content that we teach and expect of students in
reading materials might very well be more advanced than the grammar that we teach and
expect of students in writing activities.

THREE FALSE DICHOTOMIES IN MATERIALS DESIGN:

FLUENCY VS ACCURACY, PROCESS VS PRODUCT, AND
LEAST COMMUNICATIVE VS MOST COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES

One great danger of establishing a range and putting two different terms on the opposite ends
is falling into the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. Inevitably we want one end of the
scale to represent something good and the other end of the scale to be something bad, creating
an unnatural division between twin aspects of a whole. Consider the division of language use
into fluency and accuracy and the related division of writing into process vs product: during
the early 1980s fluency/process became the overriding goals of most ESL programs (and
teachers) in the US while correcting students for accuracy and having them attempt finished
products were derided as so badly hurting the feelings of language learners that they chased
them out of the classroom altogether; besides, accuracy would arise naturally from fluency and
process would lead to high-quality products-eventually.

As with many false dichotomies, these are best dealt with by landing firmly in the middle of
the scale: students deserve educational programs and materials that can lead to the
development of accurate fluency, especially when those students are moving into the highest
levels of education and study in colleges and universities in an English-speaking country.
Programs (and teachers) that abandoned instruction in pronunciation and/or grammar are now
254 PATRICIA BYRD

reconsidering the importance of attention to accuracy in both speaking and writing-and to the
product end of the process-product scale (Canseco and Byrd, 1989; Joan Morley, personal
communication, 12 December 1992; Reid, 1993). (We might well remember that most
academic writing by faculty members as well as by students is motivated by a requirement for
a product. While we go through processes of thinking, collection of information, and revision
of drafts, we eventually come to the time when something must be turned in. Thus, the process
results in a product-and is motivated by the need for that product.)

Another scale with potential for leading us to believe a false dichotomy is one that ranks
activities from least to most communicative [e.g. Dubin and Olshtain (1986) and Skierso
(1991)]. Since the word communicative is associated with many of the beliefs we hold dearest
in our profession, the danger here is in rejecting outright any activity that might fall at the
“lesser” end of the scale. In all types of learning of all types of materials, there is an important
place for memory work and for the learning of “meta” information associated with the
particular body of knowledge.

I begin to fear that the US love of being entertained and for individual self-expression has led
many US materials writers and language teachers to a xenophobic rejection of the use of
memory and memorizing as valued tools in the learning process. Students from other learning
traditions must be puzzled at the neglect in ESL classes in the US of their skill at memorizing.
We put teachers under an impossible strain when we suggest that everything that happens in a
language classroom should involve “real” communication. Along with the “metas” of
metacognitive and metalinguistic skills and strategies (Oxford, 1990; O’Malley and Chamot,
1990), we should provide for metacommunication activities through which students learn
about communication by observing it, discussing it, analyzing it, practicing pieces of it, and
planning ways to do it. For instance, one such activity might include practice with the forms of
questions actually used by students in US degree courses, including grammatical as well as
sociolinguistic features of question-asking in the classroom. Students would not just ask
questions but would have instruction about the forms of questions and the appropriate use of
questions in different contexts.

CONCLUSION

A published textbook is the result of an intellectual and emotional struggle through which the
writer realizes in printed form decisions made on all of the issues raised in this discussion. If
the writer is skilful and lucky, the resulting book will be a useful addition to our field,
providing help for teachers in their language teaching and for students in their language
learning. Another inevitable outcome of the textbook publication process is that the author
becomes part of the audience for the text, learning from each text how to do the next one
better. Out of this time- and energy-consuming process, we learn more about our subject
matter, about students, about teachers, about publication in the textbook format, and about
ourselves as scholar-teacher-writers.
 WRITWG GRAMMAR TEXTBOOKS 255

REFERENCES

CANSECO, G. and BYRD, P. (1989) The writing required of graduate students in business administration. TESCZ
Quarterly 23(2), 305-316.
CELCE-MURCIA, M. (1985) Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching. Foreign
L.unguageAnnals 1,131-151.
CELCE-MURCIA, M. and HINES, S. (1988) Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
CUMMINS, J. (1980) The cross-lingual dimension of language proficiency: implications for bilingual education and
the optimal age question. TESOL Quarterly 14,75-87.
DUBIN, F. and OLSHTAIN, E. (1986) Course Design: Developing Programs and Materials for Language Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JESPERSEN, 0. (1974) A Modem English Grammar on Historical Principles. London: George Allen & Unwin.
KRASHEN, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. (1991) Teaching grammar. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or
Foreign Language, pp. 279-296. New York Newbury House.
MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1990) “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarrerly 23,617-634.
O’MALLEY, J. M. and CHAMOT, A. U. (1990) Le arning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
OXFORD, R. (1990) Language Learning Straregies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House.
PICA, T. (1983) The article in American English: what the textbooks don’t tell us. In Wolfson, N. and Judd, E. (eds),
Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, pp. 222-233. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
PIENEMANN, M. (1988) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In Rutherford, W. and Sharwood
Smith, M. (eds), Grammar and Second Language Teaching, pp. 85-106. New York: Newbury House.
QUIRK, R., GREENBAUM, S., LEECH, G. and SVARTVIK, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.
REID, J. (1993) Teaching ES,?, Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice-Hall,
RUTHERFORD, W. (1988) Aspects of pedagogical grammar. In Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. (eds),
Grammar and Second Language Teaching, pp. 171-185. New York Newbury House.
RUTHERFORD, W. and SHARWOOD SMITH, M. (1988) What is pedagogical grammar? In Rutherford, W. and
Sharwood Smith, M. (eds), Grammar and SecondLanguage Teaching, pp. 119-121. New York: Newbury House.
SKIERSO, A. (1991) Textbook selection and evaluation. In Celce-Murica, M. (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or
Foreign Language, 2nd edition, pp. 432-453. New York: Newbury House.