Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

 

Language Learning in Higher Education

Journal of the European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education (CercleS)

Editor-in-Chief: Szczuka-Dorna, Liliana / O’Rourke, Breffni

Online
ISSN
2191-6128
See all formats and pricing
Online
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 233.00 / US$ 350.00 / GBP 191.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 49.00 / US$ 74.00 / GBP 40.00*
Print
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 233.00 / US$ 350.00 / GBP 191.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 233.00 / US$ 350.00 / GBP 191.00*
Print + Online
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 277.00 / US$ 420.00 / GBP 227.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 277.00 / US$ 420.00 / GBP 227.00*
*Prices in US$ apply to orders placed in the Americas only. Prices in GBP apply to orders placed in Great Britain only. Prices in € represent the retail prices valid in Germany (unless otherwise indicated). Prices are subject to change without notice. Prices do not include postage and handling if applicable. RRP: Recommended Retail Price.
More options …

What should be explicit in explicit grammar instruction?

Noriko Nagai / Seiki Ayano / Keiko Okada / Takayuki Nakanishi
Published Online: 2015-10-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2015-0018

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

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.

Keywords: explicit grammar instruction; argument structure; language-universal versus language-particular properties; structure-based tasks; criterial features

References

  • Akakura, Motoko. 2012. Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge . Language Teaching Research 16(1). 9–37.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Doughty, Catherine & Michael Long. 2003. Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning . Forum of International Development Studies 23. 35–73.Google Scholar

  • Dulay, Heidi C. & Marina K. Burt. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23(2). 245–258.Google Scholar

  • Ek, J. A. van & John L. M. Trim. 1991. Threshold 1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Rod. 1997. SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Rod. 2001. Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.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.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Rod. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Felix, Sascha W. 1981. The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition . Language Learning 31(1). 87–112.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan H. Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum & Ivan A. Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Language typology. Berlin: de Gruyter.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar . Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.Google Scholar

  • Krashen, Stephen. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

  • Kuroda, Shigeyuki. 1979. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. New York & London: Garland Publishing.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.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lightbown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada. 2013. How languages are learned, 4th edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.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). 35–66Google Scholar

  • Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Nassaji, Hossein & Sandra Fotos. 2011. Teaching grammar in second language classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Nation, I. S. Paul. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

  • Nation, I. S. Paul. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Samuda, Virginia & Martin Bygate. 2008. Tasks in second language learning. London, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar

  • Schimitt, Norbert. 2008. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schimitt, Norbert & Michael McCarthy. 1998. Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.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.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.Google Scholar

About the article

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

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

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.

Published Online: 2015-10-02

Published in Print: 2015-10-01

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).

Citation Information: Language Learning in Higher Education, Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 375–396, ISSN (Online) 2191-6128, ISSN (Print) 2191-611X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2015-0018.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in