In language teaching, the Eldorado that we all look for, is a teaching method that would exploit the secrets of how children learn their own mother tongue.
Obviously, they know nothing directly of “grammar”, nor of tidy “functions” of language. However, of both of these, they have an intuitive sense. So for example a 3 year old once said to me: “We swimmed in the river”. Here was an intuitive sense of regularity in “forming past tenses”!
In the language manual, “A common European Framework”, a measuring system for the stages of competence for all the languages of the European union is presented. At considerable trouble, 6 levels are defined in very vague terms which in the end are versions of a functional division of language. Obviously if a “common framework” of measurement is required for all European languages, there is no alternative since grammar areas, such as say, the “Present simple” vary so much in their expressive uses. So grammar is not considered a useful common system of assessment. However when we teach a particular language (ie are in the profession of teaching, this objection doesn’t hold and in fact the most effective and also open ended form of teaching is that based on grammar. After all, many so called functions of language can require a various possible grammatical forms, so a function one may be required to hold in the mind more than by just picking a single grammar form from one’s mind. Grammar forms are open: we can turn them to many uses if we have understood their communicative direction. (eg.the 3 futures and their particularising differentiation of types of future action and event).
Modern text books however follow a division by functions.
It seems to me that teaching has been distorted by this functional approach with its companion theory of the “communicative approach” and then, due to its insufficiencies, by the inevitable re-introduction of the WRONG kind of grammar centred teaching.
The idea behind the functional method is that it is more natural than working by grammar. However, within the school reality, it leads to very blurred teaching.
The “Common framework” goes to a lot of trouble to make 6 grades of distinction within the functional divisions all of which are then divided into speaking, listening reading competences and others..
Over the last 20 years I have noticed a great uncertainty about using the grammar forms of the language among the young foreign visitors to our language school. I think this is due to the amorphous, shifting quality of a functional division of the language that they encounter in their text books..
From a purely empirical need to be as effective as possible in a 3 week course, we have made our own mix of approaches which try and square the circle of approximating to “natural” language learning within the artificial context of the class room.
We have come to the following divisions of language teaching tasks.
1. We explain grammar regularities. To do this we use our own text “Make Grammar Talk” where the grammar is organised in larger units than is usual. We think of them as “grammar islands”: those blocks that give us confidence in particular communication tasks. A whole problem can be better reasoned over. The teacher’s explanation should have the support of a text, but should be spoken and reasoned aloud with the pupils and they themselves should be encouraged to explain the differences. For this reason we keep “rules” to an absolute minimum, even to the extent of being relatively sceptical of their effectiveness. This is why we have kept the rules on the right - so they don’t interfere with the clarity of the visual fact. The example sentences (the “nuggets”) are the means through which, by endless recycling and learning by heart, we encourage the formation of that intuitive sense of structure that the child native learner has. Understanding should be autonomous and it should not be based on abstruse rules nor should these rules only be accessible to that strangely safe mental procedure called “exercises”, on which far too much time is sent at school: all to relatively little avail - as far as speaking competence is concerned.
2. We have called our grammar “Make Grammar Talk” to indicate our commitment to speaking grammar in realistic contexts (thus our use of plays and phrases). Despite the writing of a grammar, we use grammar in a very limited and focused fashion. This is supposed to be a common to “modern methods” but it is more honoured in the breach than the observance thanks to the mania for written exercises. (a form of class control?). Though we give verbal grammar explanation, this is supported by the grammar focus of the nuggets and the closely associated technique of giving “grammar plays” which then students freely imitate in their own “open ended” writing. The term “open ended”, describes the difference to written exercises with their channelled, one right answer. When we speak a foreign language we need to be able to manage the horse of language over difficult terrain; terrain which is always changing. For an awareness of the tricks of language, grammar is more useful than the preconceived, inflexible “functions” of language. If we look at the “Common Framework” in its detail, what is striking is the flabby, boneless quality of its language distinctions. Furthermore, a given function has to be further subdivided into levels of competence. If instead of this we just learn “the uses of the 2 presents” supporting this with lots of spoken practice, and with “chunks” of real usage, we are free to use it in any function or situation for which the language has developed those particular distinctions of the “2 present tenses”.
Take a functional example such as “Asking for directions”. It “hosts” a great number of possible “grammar”. Can/ would/ Do/ which/what bus can I./tell me if etc. This would really leave us with a method that should be called “The phrase book method”. We could then do the suitable support teaching. But this does not happen and pupils are left to “acquire” the language in some pseudo natural fashion.
Very young children, learning their own language benefit from a great deal of repetition and refashioning practice. Here is a possible conversation.
Mother “Have you finished”?
Child “you finished”.
Mother “Yes, have you finished”?
Child. “I finished”.
Mother “Good. You’ve finished it all up”.
Child “All up”
What I have noticed with my 3 year old daughter is the sheer hard work of repetition and rearrangement of sentences that she has put in to learn her 2 languages.
By using plays and phrases in games and memorising activities, we try and imitate this absolutely essential work of repetition. Consider however to what extent “drills” have been snubbed over recent years as “not natural”. And is the classroom natural? The plays and nuggets are both grammar focused by us because in the limited context of the classroom we must only ask the student to “waste” brain space over what is essential. If we reduce the clutter and focus, then we have a right to demand that what is often merely “studied”, is also “learnt”.
Student comment in a scuola media di Capriolo BS. “Per noi, imparare le cose a memoria e’ abbastanza difficle perche’ a scuola ci fanno solo studiare”! Bella distinzione!
This grammar focus makes up for the fact that at school, lessons are infrequent and easily forgotten.
An absolutely essential part of learning a language is vocabulary which, for lack of interesting procedures of study, is often totally neglected - as we see every year in the very limited words available to our visiting students.
To reject the functional / communicative approach, supported by the might of the “Common European Framework”, may seem foolhardy. However there is some theoretical support.
Of all talks at such venues as The British Council, those of Michael Lewis seemed to address the limitations of present teaching. Perhaps though, due to maybe my missing some critical lecture, I have not yet understood exactly what he would substitute for that which he so well criticises. What I have understood to be the conceptual tools of such a change would be “Institutional utterances” and “sentence stems”. My little daughter’s language learning seems to support Michael Lewis’ emphasis. A sentence stem would be “You mustn’t” + verb infinitive. “Why can’t I + verb infinitive, while an institutional utterance would be; “You mustn’t do that”.
A young child puts together what we could call a dynamic phrase book in which it is steadily more aware of structure constancies - even to the point of over generalising: a marvellously abstract achievement! “I swimmed in the river”!!
A child also repeats a great deal and my daughter’s trick at the critical 2 year old stage was to repeat sections as long as possible of a speaker’s sentences. Mother “Did you like that”. Child “you like that”.
Finally, let us take the case of German. On the one hand we all agree that there is “a lot of grammar in German and less in English”! In a way, German shows us effectively how no one could learn German from rules. Imagine the internal librarian, or “monitor” as it has been called by sceptical theorists. There we are, trying to speak German: how could we possibly have time to check all our utterances for correctness. In fact some adults find a foreign language almost impossible because while not wanting to make mistakes they realise that they just don’t have a quick enough mental librarian at work to check for mistakes before they send out a spoken message!
"Mit meinem freund"
"Etwas zu essen"
"Pass auf, es ist gefärlich"
These are institutional utterances and the child slowly builds up a bank of these. Case and gender variations are learnt attached to real speech.
Research has found that young children can learn as many as 70 words a day. Clearly one of the secrets of their ability is strong memorising power. This is not available to 7-18 year olds. What we must give them though is plenty of repetition practice of a core “speech kit”, both in whole utterances and in recyclable form. Students need game and acting practice with these set forms and they also need practice at modifying and recycling these forms.

At school:

• memory is distracted;
• learning is without strong motivation; so learning by “heart” is difficult;
• language is not being used for genuine communication. The so called “communicative approach” is really a pale imitation of real communication. It’s really pseudo communication;
• the brain is without the assistance of that mechanism to which Chomsky gave the rather horrible name “The Language Acquisition Device” and which operates at the age when we learn our mother tongue.