SOMETIMES GRAMMAR IS NOT ENOUGH

Carlos Alberto Aldana S. 
caaldana@msn.com
Publicado en Capital Letter No. 5
Mayo de 2004


The role of grammar in the process of language learning.
It is widely recognized that grammar has played a central role in language teaching. Traditional and modern Curriculums and a wide diversity of approaches to language teaching have been based on this assumption, that is to say, the fundamental role of grammar in second -or foreign- language learning. 


In spite of the tremendous impact that recent c o m municative approaches have had on the way we should understand language in general, there seems to be a deep belief that grammar is, or should be, the teacher's and learners' main concern and purpose. This is the philosophy to which a lot of second -or foreign- language learners have been exposed. In spite of the degree of linguistic competence most of them have, it is only when they come in contact with other speakers that they realize that linguistic competence is only a vehicle for mastering a language.


So, what does it mean to "know and to speak a language.7" There are several factors to take into consideration to answer this question. Let me consider four main variables of critical importance in this process: language acquisition, grammatical competence, communicative competence, and language proficiency.
It is well known that there are different theories of language acquisition (Behaviorist, Universal grammar, Monitor, Cognitive, Connectionism, Interactionism, and others), focused on diverse approaches of the process of learning. Some of these theories support the idea that imitation and practice can explain how some aspects of language Such as word meanings and language habits are learned -behaviorism. 


However, imitation and practice alone cannot explain the complexity of the knowledge that all "normal" children attain. The acquisition of such complex information seems to depend on children's possession of some skills which permit them to process the language -Innatism. What is more, modern research has shown that adults or children who are exposed to a language in the absence of an interpersonal interaction and a specific environment do not develop language normally -Interactionism'. Nevertheless, adults and children's development can be explained in terms of a mixture of theories.


Thus Behaviorist explanations may clarify routine aspects, Innatist justifications could explain the acquisition of complex grammar; and Interactionist explanations are useful for understanding how children connect form and meaning in language, how to interact in dialogues, and how to make use of language properly.


Many teachers consider that knowing a language is equivalent to knowing the grammar. In other words, grammatical competence is related to grammatical rules, which stipulate the correct usage, formulation and construction of words and phrases, in grammatical categories, such as subjects, complement, etc; in short, it is related to the ability to create propositions. 


The problem is that grammar-oriented approaches often produce significant misunderstandings. Different situations require different styles, and innumerable meaningful sentences may not be acceptable in the grammatical system of a language.
On the other hand, communicative competence is related to the how, when and why of language use. It is the ability to adjust our language behavior to the various circumstances and social situations that we normally face in the course of our lives. For instance, a second-or foreign-language student should know utterances such as "it's cold in here...": this is not a mere statement, the speaker is implicitly questioning the addressee to close the window.


The degree to which a learner has acquired grammatical and communicative competence and the skill with which he/ she uses this knowledge for real-life purposes refer to our four variable: language proficiency - a term that includes the previous two. In this way, when we say that a learner is proficient, we meant that she/he is, more or less, fluent in the target language. For such reason language proficiency is considered the end product of language learning.


Then, it emerges a question: how is it possible that some teachers focus some courses of languages exclusively on grammar when their principal goal must be to help students to become competent speakers in every situation? How can some teachers limit students to teaching tenses and constructions and doing nothing to help them to manage with language in its social context? The only true is that a serious process of "cultural training" must try to avoid all those errors and misunderstandings in communication.


Grammar cannot constitute the only approach in the development of language proficiency. Grammar should always be sensitive and adaptable to all those cultural specific assumptions in language and communication, always remembering that it is not necessarily conductive to language proficiency.

1 See Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N (1993) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.