GRAMMAR-
TRANSLATION
METHOD
Małgorzata Szulc-Kurpaska
GRAMMAR-
TRANSLATION
METHOD
Małgorzata Szulc-Kurpaska
Grammar-Translation Method
2
The Prussian Method
The effect of the influence of Latin on:
On the way vernacular language were
supposed to be taught
The goals for which Latin was taught,
i.e.literacy and understanding of the classics
An educated person should be able to read
and understand the classics
Such a person should recite the rules of
grammar and proverbs
Grammar-Translation
Method
3
The key to learning a foreign language was
the knowledge of its grammar in the form
of memorized rules learned by heart,
accompanied by declensions and
conjugations
The knowledge of grammar provided
mental gymnastics for the intellect
Rules, i.e. explanations about were
presented first and then examples followed
(deductive presentation)
Grammar-Translation
Method
4
The main form of activity in class was
translation from the target language to
the native language and vice versa
The unit of the material for translation
as well as for the whole method was the
sentence, translation as performad both
orally and in writing
Some proverbs were learned by heart
Grammar-Translation Method
5
The learner’s native language had an
important role to play, it was used as a
medium of instruction
The teaching material contained
classical texts which were to be read
and subjected to grammatical analysis
Reading was emphasized but it was not
contemporary nor communicatively
useful
Grammar-Translation
Method
6
Vocabulary items were presented in the
form of bilingual lists to be memorized.
Verbatim word-for-word learning had an
important role to play in this method
The Reform Movement
7
Modern languages English, German and
French entered school curricula in the
18th century
They were taught in the Grammar-
Translation Method which caused
dissatisfaction with the results
The Reform Movement
8
-the primacy of spoken language and oral-based
methodology
-learners should first hear the language before they see
its written form
-the importance of phonetics and phonology
(International Phonetic Association was founded in 1886)
-the use of the target language for instruction
(translation should be avoided)
-teaching vocabulary in the context
-inductive grammar teaching (from examples to a rule)
rules after practice of grammar points in context
The Direct Method
9
The Direct Method originated in a
desire to do something that the schools
of the time were not doing, to teach
foreign languages as practical skills for
everydaypurposes of social behaviour
‘Direct’ comes from the absence of any
mediating role of grammar, translation
or dictionary
The Direct Method
10
The emphasis in this method was on
speaking and listening.
Correct pronunciation was of primary
importance
The forms of actvity were oral,
especially dialogues and question-and-
answer exchanges
The Direct Method
11
New material was first introduced orally
Vocabulary was chosen on the basis of
its practicality and its meaning was
demonstrated directly, with the use of
objects, pictures and gestures
Grammar of the target language was
taught inductively in a variety of oral
activities
The Direct Method
12
Never translate – demonstrate
Never explain – act
Never make a speech – ask questions
Never imitate – correct
Never speak in single words – use sentences
Never speak too much – make students
speak
Never use the book – use your lesson plan
Never jump around – follow your plan
The Direct Method
13
Never go too fast – keep the pace of the
student
Never speak too slowly – speak normally
Never speak too quickly – speak
naturally
Never speak too loudly – speak naturally
Never be impatient – take it easy
Markedness
14
In Markedness Differential Hypothesis,
markedness is defined in the following terms:
‘A phenomenon or structure X in some language
is relatively more marked than some other
phenomenon or structure Y if cross-linguistically the
presence of X in a language implies the presence of
Y, but the presence of Y does not imply the
presence of X’ (Eckman, 1985:290).
Markedness and L1
transfer
15
Native
language (L1)
Target
language
(L2)
Interlanguage
1 unmarked
unmarked
unmarked
2 unmarked
marked
unmarked
3 marked
unmarked
unmarked
4 marked
marked
unmarked
Markedness and L1 transfer
16
Markedness theory can help explain why some
differences between the native and the target language
lead to learning difficulty, while other differences do not.
The basic assumption is that unmarked settings of
parameters will occur in interlanguage before marked
settings, even if the L2 provides evidence of a marked
setting (as in case 4).
Thus it is predicted that no transfer will take place from
native to target language when L1 has a marked setting
(cases (3) and (4)).
The most obvious case of transfer is (2), where the
native language shows an unmarked setting and the
target language a marked one.
Universal Grammar and Typology
17
L1 unmarked forms are transferred into interlanguage.
L1 marked forms are not transferred into interlanguage.
Both the Typological approach and the Universal
Grammar approach have generated useful predictions
about the course of interlanguage and the influence of
the first language.
Language acquisition proceeds by mastering easier
unmarked properties before the more difficult marked
ones. There seem to be exceptions, however, in the
early stages of acquisition and where both first-
language and target-language constructions are
marked.
The Acculturation Model
18
Acculturation is defined by Schumann as ‘the
process of becoming adapted to a new
culture’.
is seen as an important aspect of SLA, because
language is one of the most observable
expressions of culture
and because in second language settings the
acquisition of a new language is seen as tied to
the way in which the learner’s community and
the target language community view each
other.
The Acculturation Model
19
The central premise of the Acculturation Model is:
... second language acquisition is just one aspect
of acculturation and the degree to which a
learner acculturates to the target language group
will control the degree to which he acquires the
second language. (Schumann, 1978:34).
Schumann, J. 1978. ‘The acculturation model for
second language acquisition’ in R. Gingras, ed.
Second Language Acquisition and Foreign
Language Teaching. Arlington, VA.: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Social and psychological distance
20
Acculturation, and hence SLA, is determined by the degree
of social and psychological distance between the learner and
the target language culture.
Social distance is the result of a number of factors which
affect the learner as a member of a social group in contact
with the target language group.
Psychological distance is the result of various affective
factors which concern the learner as an individual. The social
factors are primary. The psychological factors come into play
in cases where the social distance is indeterminant (i.e.
where social factors constitute neither a clearly positive nor
a clearly negative influence on acculturation).
Social distance
An example of a ‘good’ learning situation is when:
the target language and L2 groups view each other as socially
equal;
the target language and L2 groups are both desirous that the L2
group will assimilate;
both the target language and L2 groups expect the L2 group to
share social facilities with the target language group (i.e. there is
low enclosure);
the L2 group is small and not very cohesive;
the L2 group’s culture is congruent with that of the target
language group;
both groups have positive attitudes to each other;
the L2 group envisages staying in the target language area for
an extended period.
21
Psychological distance
22
The psychological factors are affective in nature:
language shock (i.e. the learner experiences
doubt and possible confusion when using the
L2);
culture shock (i.e. the learner experiences
disorientation, stress, fear, etc. as a result of
differences between his or her own culture and
that of the target language community);
motivation;
ego boundaries.
Pidginization Hypothesis
23
When social and/or psychological distances are
great, the learner fails to progress beyond the
early stages, with the result that his language is
pidginized. Schumann refers to this account of
SLA as the pidgnization hypothesis.
Forms observed in pidgins:
‘no+V’ negatives,
uninverted interrogatives,
the absence of possessive and plural inflections,
and restricted verb morphology.
Pidginization Hypothesis
24
Schumann suggests ‘pidginisation may
characterise all early second language
acquisition and ... under conditions of social and
psychological distance it persists (1978a:110).
When pidginisation persists the learner fossilises.
That is, he no longer revises his interlanguage
system in the direction of the target language.
Thus early fossilisation and pidginisation are
identical processes. Thus continued pidginisation
is the result of social and psychological distance.
Pidginization Hypothesis
25
The degree of acculturation leads to
pidgin-like language in two ways:
it controls the level of input that the
learner receives;
it reflects the function which the learner
wishes to use the L2 for
Functions of language
26
Schumann distinguishes three broad functions
of language:
the communicative function, which concerns
the transmission of purely referential,
denotative information;
the integrative function, which involves the
use of language to mark the speaker as a
member of a particular social group;
the expressive function, which consists of the
use of language to display linguistic virtuosity
(e.g. in literary uses).
The Nativisation Model
27
Andersen sees SLA as the result of two general forces
which he labels nativisation and denativisation.
Nativisation consists of assimilation; the learner
makes the input conform to his own internalised view
of what constitutes the L2 system.
The learner simplifies the learning task by building
hypotheses based on the knowledge he already
possesses (e.g. knowledge of his first language).He
attends to an ‘internal norm’.
Nativisation is apparent in pidginisation and the early
stages of both first and second language acquisition.
The Nativisation Model
28
Denativisation involves accommodation (in the
Piagetian sense); the learner adjusts his
internalised system to make it fit the input.
The learner makes use of inferencing strategies
which enable him to remodel his interlanguage
system in accordance with the ‘external norm’
(i.e. the linguistic features represented in the
input language).
Denativisation is apparent in depidginisation (i.e.
the elaboration of a pidgin language which
occurs through the gradual incorporation of forms
from an external language source) and also later
first and second language acquisition.
The Nativisation Model
29
Nativisation
Denativisation
Growth independent of
the external norm
Assimilation
Accommodation
Growth towards an
external norm
Restricted access to
input
Adequate access to
input
Pidginisation
Depidginisation
creation of a unique
first/second language
acquisition
first/second language as
increasing
approximation towards
external ‘target’ norm
Accommodation Theory
30
Giles’s primary concern is to investigate how
intergroup uses of language reflect basic social
and psychological attitudes in interethnic
communication.
the relationship that holds between the learner’s
social group (termed the ‘ingroup’) and the
target language community (termed the
‘outgroup’).
However, whereas Schumann explains these
relationships in terms of variables that create
actual social distance, Giles does so in terms of
perceived social distance
Accommodation Theory
31
Whereas for Schumann social and
psychological distance are static (or at
least change only slowly over time),
for Giles intergroup relationships are
dynamic and fluctuate in accordance
with the shifting views of identity held by
each group.
Giles agrees with Gardner (1979) that
motivation is the primary determinant of
L2 proficiency
Accommodation Theory
32
He considers the level of motivation to be a reflex of how individual learners
define themselves in ethnic terms. This is governed by a number of key variables:
Identification of the individual learner with his ethnic group: the extent to which
the learner sees himself as a member of a specific ingroup, separate from his
outgroup;
Inter-ethnic comparison: whether the learner makes favourable or unfavourable
comparisons between his own ingroup and the outgroup; this will be influenced
by the learner’s awareness of ‘cognitive alternatives’ regarding the status of his
own group’s position, for instance when he perceives the intergroup situation as
unfair;
Perception of ethno-linguistic vitality: whether the learner sees his ingroup as
holding a low or high status and as sharing or excluded from institutional power;
Perception of ingroup boundaries: whether the learner sees his ingroup as
culturally and linguistically separate from the outgroup (= hard boundaries) or
as culturally and linguistically related (= soft boundaries);
Identification with other ingroup social categories: whether the learner identifies
with few or several other ingroup social categories (e.g. occupational, religious,
gender) and as a consequence whether he holds adequate or inadequate status
within his ingroup.
Accommodation Theory
33
Key variables
High
motivation
High
proficiency
Low
motivation
Low
proficiency
Identification
with ingroup
weak
strong
Inter-ethnic
comparison
in-group is not
seen as inferior
in-group is seen
as inferior
Perception of
ethno-linguistic
vitality
low perception
high perception
Perception of
ingroup
boundaries
soft and open
hard and closed
Identification
with other
social
categories
strong
identification –
satisfactory in-
group status
weak
identification –
inadequate in-
group status
The non-systematic variability
34
Native-speaker language use is also characterised by
non-systematic variability. This is of two types:
performance variability is not part of the user’s
competence; it occurs when the language user is
unable to perform his competence.
It is not difficult to find examples of free variation,
although the examples are likely to be idiosyncratic.
For example, I sometimes say [ofn] and sometimes
[oftn]. Or I have used ‘variation’ and ‘variability’
interchangeably. I alternate between ‘that’ and ‘who’
as subject relative clauses in non-restrictive relative
clauses.
Capability continuum
35
Tarone (1983) represents the effects of situational context as
a continuum of interlanguage styles. At one end of the
continuum is the vernacular style which is called upon when
the learner is not attending to his speech.. This is the style
which is both most natural and most systematic.
At the other end of the continuum is the careful style, which
is most clearly evident in tasks that require the learner to
make a grammatical judgement (e.g. to say whether a
sentence is correct or incorrect). The careful style is called
upon when the learner is attending closely to his speech.
Thus the stylistic continuum is the product of differing
degrees of attention reflected in a variety of performance
tasks. Tarone views the stylistic continuum as competence,
not performance.
Capability continuum
36
Linguistic and situational
context
The effects of the linguistic and situational
context interact to influence jointly the
learner’s use of interlanguage forms.
The linguistic contexts are seen as a
continuum ranging from ‘simple’ (e.g. single
clause utterances for the third person
singular ‘-s’) to ‘complex’ (e.g. subordinate
clauses for the third person singular ‘-s’),
The situational contexts are also viewed as
a continuum from careful to vernacular.
37
Linguistic and situational contexts
38
Capability continuum
In which of the spaces is the third person
present tense ending
–s
most likely to be
used correctly?
C
39
Slajd z punktami
Punkt 1
Podpunkt (wcisnij tab zeby wciac)
Punkt 2 (kolejne punkty dodajesz
enterem)
40
Capability continuum
Tarone, E. 1979. ‘Interlanguage as chameleon’. Language
Learning 29, 181-191.
Tarone cited evidence from the research literature indicating
that learner utterances are systematically variable in at least
two senses:
linguistic context may have a variable effect on the learner’s
use of related phonological and syntactic structures;
the task used for the elicitation of data from learners may
have a variable effect on the learner’s production of related
phonological and syntactic structures.
Tarone maintained that the evidence shows that
interlanguage speech production varies systematically with
context and elicitation task.
41
Non-systematic variability
Ellis’s Variable Competence Model
Ellis has argued that in addition to systematic variability, there is non-systematic variability in
interlanguage. In the early stages of second-language acquisition new forms are used that have
not yet been integrated into the learner’s form-function variation. This process Ellis saw to involve
non-systematic variability in the interlanguage. Systematic variability occurs only when the new
forms have been accommodated by restructuring of the existing form-function system to one that
more closely approximates that of the target language.
Ellis gave the example of a learner who used two different negative rules (no+verb and
don’t+verb) to perform the same illocutionary meaning in the same situational context, in the
same linguistic context, and in the same discourse context. Nor was there evidence for any
difference in the amount of attention paid to the form of the utterance. Ellis argued that the two
forms were in free variation and that such variability in use is non-systematic until reorganisation
phase begins when the forms are distinguished in terms of situational, linguistic, and discourse
use.
Ellis (1986) drew a more “internal” picture of the learner in his variable competence model. Ellis
hypothesised a storehouse of “variable interlanguage rules” depending on how automatic and
how analysed the rules are. He drew a sharp distinction between planned and unplanned
discourse. In order to examine variation. The former implies less automaticity, and therefore
requires the learner to call upon a certain category of interlanguage rules, while the latter, more
automatic production, predisposes the learner to dip into another set of interlanguage rules.
Ellis, R. 1986. Understanding Second language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
42
Stages of interlanguage
a stage of random errors, a stage that Corder
called “presystematic”, in which the learner is
only vaguely aware that there is some systematic
order to a particular class of items; examples:
John cans sing.
John can to sing.
John can singing.
(experimentation and inaccurate guessing)
43
Stages of interlanguage
the second emergent stage of interlanguage finds the
learner growing in consistency in linguistic production. The
learner has begun to discern a system and to internalise
certain rules.
L: I go New York.
NS: You’re going to New York?
L: [doesn’t understand] What?
NS: You will go to New York?
L: Yes.
NS: When?
L: 1972
NS: Oh, you went to New York in 1972.
L: Yes, I go 1972.
44
Stages of interlanguage
The third stage is truly a systematic stage in which the learner is
now able to manifest more consistency in producing the second
language. The most salient difference between the second and the
third stage is the ability of learners to correct their errors when
they are pointed out.
L: Many fish are in the lake. These fish are serving in the
restaurants near the lake.
NS: [laughing] The fish are serving?
L: [laughing] Oh, no, the fish are served in the restaurants.
A final stage, which Brown calls the stabilisation stage in the
development of interlanguage systems Corder (1973) called a
“postsystematic” stage. Here the learner has relatively few errors
and has mastered the system to the point that fluency and
intended meanings are not problematic. This fourth stage is
characterised by the learner’s ability to self-correct.
45