Grammar Is Not Only A Liberating Force But A Communicative Resource
I am very glad that Richard Cullen chose to consider the applications of the essay of Widdowson (1988) ‘Grammar, and nonsense, and learning’, which first appeared in 1988 and then in 1990. This short article is a real gem, which should be read by all those who have an opinion about communicative language teaching (CLT). And it is opinions that this short paper will deal with because my view of the consequences of Widdowson’s perspective differs considerably from Cullen’s. But, let me repeat and add to Cullen’s quotes from the Widdowson reference, reproduced in the order they appear in the original: Thomas Sabo Charms
The greater the contribution of context in the sense of shared knowledge and experience, the less need there is for grammar to augment the association of words … grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force; it frees us from the dependency on context and the limitations of a purely lexical categorization of reality, (p. 151) Grammar, then, can be seen as a resource for the adaptation of lexis … Grammar is a device for indicating the most common and recurrent aspects of meaning which it would be tedious and inefficient to incorporate into separate lexical items. The question is how grammar should be learned so that its intrinsic communicative character is understood and acted upon. This cannot be done by restricting attention to its formal properties, the relations and regularities which make up the internal mechanism of the device … Learners need to realize the junction of the device as a way of mediating between words and contexts, as a powerful resource for the purposeful achievement of meaning. In the first quote, Widdowson makes the point that without grammar the more reliance there is on shared knowledge or immediate mutual context, and vice versa: the more the shared knowledge and context, the more redundant or superfluous is grammar. But, the crucial, underlying point is that grammar is conceived in terms of meanings not forms, or rules, as Widdowson explains more clearly in the third quote. So, the contrast here is between grammatical and lexical meaning, not between rules and words for example, or the conventional hierarchy of semantics, syntax, and phonology. This emphasis on the grammatical-lexical meaning contrast is fundamental to C LT and was one also recognized by Wilkins (1976) in the notional, not the functional, aspects of Notional Syllabuses—another must for C LTers. Communicative language exercises and tasks will always have to balance the interrelationship between grammatical and lexical meanings.
But Widdowson is not saying that grammar liberates us from context. On the contrary, he is saying that it liberates us from the constraints of the immediate, or default, context. In the third quote again, the point is precisely that grammatical meaning actually contextualizes (specific) lexical meaning or that general notions situate specific ones. So, for example, the expression of defmiteness through the use of a definite article in English signals to the hearer that the referent should be identifiable, and similarly the expression of a particular past reference is manifested through the selection of various formal elements in the verb phrase. The central point here is that in the acquisition process, grammar has to be encountered in context, so that it can be used to create context, by contextualizing lexical meaning. In other words, there is little point in decontextualized grammar teaching, whether practical or theoretical, or whether receptive or productive. Thomas Sabo Bracelets Furthermore, the context should be real to the users, so that the grammatical meaning takes on genuine significance.
Processing your request, Please wait....
