Skip to content

8 Arguments Convincing Against Grammar Syllabus According To Scott Thornbury

Is A Grammar Syllabus Important?

This article is about why a grammar syllabus is not important. Eight arguments are advanced against a grammar syllabus. Implications for language teaching are listed at the end of the article.

Introduction:

In this video, Scott Thornbury presents a compelling case against a grammar syllabus, offering eight persuasive arguments that challenge its effectiveness. By examining these arguments, we can gain insights into alternative approaches to language learning and teaching.

Scott’s Eight Arguments Against a Grammar Syllabus:

1. Process Vs. Product Arguments:

One fundamental argument questions whether language should be viewed as a process or a product. Traditional grammar syllabi tend to focus on the product, reflecting how language is perceived by linguists, rather than how it is actually acquired by learners in the process of communication.

2. The Corpus:

Grammar syllabi often fail to incorporate the findings of corpus linguistics. The knowledge we have gained through extensive corpus research about the real nature of language is not adequately represented in these syllabi.

3. Spoken Or Written:

Another concern is that grammar syllabi primarily address written language, which differs to some extent from spoken language. This raises the question of whether grammar derived from written text can be effectively transferred to spoken language use.

4. Phraseological:

Spoken language heavily relies on phrases or chunks, which make up a significant portion, even up to 60%, of everyday communication. Neglecting this aspect in a grammar syllabus limits learners’ ability to engage in authentic and fluent spoken interactions.

5. Emergent Language:

Grammar should be viewed as an emergent property of language rather than a prerequisite for communication. It is not necessary for learners to master grammar before they can effectively communicate; rather, grammar naturally develops as a by-product of meaningful communication.

6. Focus On Form:

Grammar syllabi often place a disproportionate emphasis on form at the expense of meaning. While form is important, overemphasizing it neglects the crucial role of meaning and context in language use.

7. The Grammar McNuggets:

Grammar syllabi often portray language as discrete, segmented bits that can be detached from context and transmitted to learners. This perspective overlooks the inherent interconnectedness of language and the importance of context in understanding and using grammar effectively.

8. The Backwash Effect:

The selection of language elements in grammar syllabi often reflects the prevailing structural view of language at a given time, rather than considering their intrinsic significance for effective learning. This approach may limit learners’ exposure to relevant and useful language forms and structures.

Grammar or Vocabulary?

While Scott Thornbury argues against grammar syllabi, he does not dismiss the teaching of grammar altogether. Instead, he advocates for a shift in priorities, suggesting that grammar should not be the sole starting point of any syllabus. It is worth noting that vocabulary plays a vital role in communication. As Wilkins (1972) astutely stated, “Without grammar, very little can be conveyed, but without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed.” 

Grammar Syllabus and Language Learning
Grammar Syllabus and Language Learning

Implications to language teaching

Therefore, some pedagogical implications emerge: teachers should consider vocabulary as the foundation and starting point of instruction. 

H. G. Widdowson (1990) further supports this view, suggesting that an effective and natural approach would reverse the traditional pedagogic dependency by beginning with lexical items and demonstrating their grammatical modification for communicative effectiveness. 

Michael Lewis also advocates for this lexical approach:

Teaching which gives primacy to form and uses words simply as a means of exemplification actually denies the nature of grammar as a construct for the mediation of meaning. I would suggest that the more natural and more effective approach would be to reverse this traditional pedagogic dependency, begin with lexical items and show how they need to be grammatically modified to be communicatively effective.

Widdowson, H. G. (1990: p. 95)

Here are some more implications for language teaching based on the arguments against a grammar syllabus:

  • Shift the focus from a purely grammar-centered approach to a more balanced approach that includes vocabulary, context, and meaning.
  • Incorporate findings from corpus linguistics into syllabi to ensure that learners are exposed to authentic language usage.
  • Recognize and emphasize the importance of spoken language and teach language structures that are relevant to real-life communication.
  • Integrate phraseology and chunks of language into instruction to help learners develop fluency and natural speaking skills.
  • Encourage the view of grammar as an emergent property that develops through meaningful communication rather than a prerequisite for communication.
  • Strike a balance between form and meaning, ensuring that instruction addresses both aspects effectively.
  • Avoid the tendency to fragment language into disconnected parts, and instead present grammar in meaningful contexts to enhance comprehension and application.
  • Select language elements based on their intrinsic significance for learning, rather than solely adhering to a particular structural view of language.
  • Prioritize vocabulary teaching as a foundation for effective communication, recognizing its crucial role in conveying meaning.
  • Consider adopting a lexical approach that begins with the teaching of lexical items and demonstrates their grammatical modifications for communicative effectiveness.

These implications aim to promote a more holistic and communicative approach to language teaching, integrating grammar within meaningful contexts and emphasizing the interplay between vocabulary, grammar, and effective communication.

Conclusion:

In light of Scott Thornbury’s thought-provoking arguments, it becomes apparent that a sole focus on grammar in language syllabi may not best serve learners. Incorporating a more balanced approach that recognizes the importance of vocabulary, context, meaning, and natural language use can enhance language acquisition and communication skills. By considering these arguments, teachers can reassess their pedagogical practices and explore alternative methodologies that prioritize the interconnected aspects of language learning.

References

  • Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach. Hove: LTP.
  • Widdowson, H. G. (1990) Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Wilkins, D (1972).Linguistics in language teaching. London: Arnold

Copyright © My English Pages. All rights reserved.