SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2015 / Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2

The role of theory in pedagogical grammar: A Cognitive + Communicative approach

David Newby
Pages
13–34
Publication Date
2015-09-17
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this paper, key aspects of grammar-related theory are discussed; at the same time, a theoretical model of pedagogical grammar is presented – Cognitive+Communicative Grammar – which is based on insights from Cognitive Linguistics and Communicative language teaching and which provides a comprehensive framework on the basis of which the central tasks of pedagogical grammar – objective setting, rule formulation, exercises and activities design - can be addressed in a principled way.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the most controversial areas of modern language teaching is that of pedagogical grammar.
📊
Key Findings & Data:There is little consensus on what methodology should be applied in order to facilitate grammar acquisition; as a result, in classrooms throughout the world, grammar is taught in traditional ways which lack a solid theoretical underpinning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this paper, key aspects of grammar-related theory are discussed; at the same time, a theoretical model of pedagogical grammar is presented – Cognitive+Communicative Grammar – which is based on insights from Cognitive Linguistics and Communicative language teaching and which provides a comprehensive framework on the basis of which the central tasks of pedagogical grammar – objective setting, rule formulation, exercises and activities design - can be addressed in a principled way.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Pedagogical grammar · communicative · cognitive

Abstract

One of the most controversial areas of modern language teaching is that of pedagogical grammar. There is little consensus on what methodology should be applied in order to facilitate grammar acquisition; as a result, in classrooms throughout the world, grammar is taught in traditional ways which lack a solid theoretical underpinning. This is partly due to the fact that applied linguists have given insufficient attention to various facets of pedagogical grammar and to addressing certain key issues in grammar teaching. In this paper, key aspects of grammar-related theory are discussed; at the same time, a theoretical model of pedagogical grammar is presented – Cognitive+Communicative Grammar – which is based on insights from Cognitive Linguistics and Communicative language teaching and which provides a comprehensive framework on the basis of which the central tasks of pedagogical grammar – objective setting, rule formulation, exercises and activities design - can be addressed in a principled way.

🔖

Cite This Article

Newby, D. (2015). The role of theory in pedagogical grammar: A Cognitive + Communicative approach. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 13–34. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460614

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Achard, M. (2004). Grammatical instruction in the natural approach: A cognitive grammar view. In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 166-194). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  2. Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  3. Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In A. Davies, & Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 501-523). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  4. Broccias, C. (2008). Cognitive linguistic theories of grammar and grammar teaching. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 67-90). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  5. Chalker, S. (1994). Pedagogical grammar: Principles and problems. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Willimas (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 31-44). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
  6. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
  7. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  8. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Modern Languages Division/ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Knop, S., & De Rycker, T. (2008). (Eds.). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  10. DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Dirven, R. (1990). Pedagogical grammar. Language Teaching, 23(1), 1-18. http://doi.org/d98vb6
  12. Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (33-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51. Supplement 1, 1-46.
  14. Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in second/foreign language curriculum. In E. Hinkel, & S. Fotos (Eds.) New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  15. Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H. (Eds.) (2007). Form-focused Instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Goswami, U. (2008). Principle of learning, implications for teaching: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 381-399. http://doi.org/cspjqv
  17. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold
  18. Heindler, D., Huber, R. Kuebel, G., Newby, D., Schuch, A., Sornig, K., & Wohofsky, H. (1993). Your ticket to English. Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.
  19. Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.). (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  20. Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  21. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
  22. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Johansen, S. (2015). The mighty weight of tradition: An evaluation of grammar exercises in EFL textbooks. Unpublished Master Thesis, Bergen University, Norway.
  24. Keddle, J. (2004). The CEF and the secondary school syllabus. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common European Framework (pp. 43-54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press
  26. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 1: Theoretical prerequsites. Stanford: Stanford University Press
  27. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press
  28. Langacker, R. W. (2008.) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  29. Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1994). A communicative grammar of English (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
  30. Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
  31. Littlewood, W. (2004). Second language learning theories. In A. Davies, & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 501-524). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
  32. Long, M. (2000). Acquisition and teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 4-5). London: Routledge
  33. Newby, D. (1989). Grammar for communication. Vienna: ÖBV.
  34. Newby, D. (1992). Grammar for communication: Exercises and creative activities. Vienna: ÖBV.
  35. Newby, D. (2003). A Cognitive+Communicative theory of pedagogical grammar. Unpublished Habilitationsschrift. Graz University, Austria.
  36. Newby, D. (2012). Cognitive+Communicative grammar in teacher education. In J. Huettner, B. Mehlmauer-Larcher, S. Reichl, & B. Schiftner (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Theory and practice in EFL teacher education (pp. 101-123). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  37. Newby, D. (2013a). Notions and functions. In M. Byram, & A. Hu (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 516-518; revised 2nd edition). London: Routledge.
  38. Newby, D. (2013b). Pedagogical grammar. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 524-526; revised 2nd edition). London: Routledge.
  39. Newby, D. (2014) Do grammar exercises help? Assessing the effectiveness of grammar pedagogy. In C. Haase, & N. Orlova (Eds.), ELT: Harmony and diversity (pp. 3-16). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  40. Newby, D. (2014). Harmonising the teaching and learning of grammar: A Cognitive+Communicative approach. Comano: Fondazione Lingue e Culture, Babylonia, 2/2014, 23-29.
  41. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitive- interactionist SLA perspective. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 180-207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  44. Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Harlow: Longman.
  45. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
  47. Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  49. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73-87. http://doi.org/fckcgh
  50. Taylor, J. (2008). The relevance of Cognitive Grammar for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 37-66). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  51. van Ek, J. A., Trim, J. L. M. (1991). Threshold level 1990. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press.
  52. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. London: Longman.
  53. Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Widdowson, H. G. (1988). Grammar, and nonsense, and learning. In W. E. Rutherford, & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings. (pp. 146-155). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
  55. Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.