Marianne Celce-Murcia

Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching.

To provide some perspective on current issues and challenges concerning the role of grammar in language teaching, the article reviews some methodological trends of the past 25 years. When, and to what extent, one should teach grammar to language learners is a controversial issue. The paper proposes a decision-making strategy for resolving this controversy, based on learner and instructional variables. Then taking Canale and Swains (1980) model of communicative competence, which views grammatical competence as one component of communicative competence, the paper argues that grammar instruction is part of language teaching. In this new role, grammar interacts with meaning, social function, or discourse—or a combination of these—rather than standing alone as an autonomous system to be learned for its own sake. After addressing feedback and correction in terms of research and pedagogical techniques, the article concludes with a survey of options for integrating grammar instruction into a communicative curriculum and with a reformulation of the role of grammar in language teaching.

Direct Approaches in L2 Instruction: A Turning Point in Communicative Language Teaching?

The TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the TESOL profession. It also welcomes responses to rebuttals to any articles or remarks published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.

Some Reservations Concerning Error Analyis

The argument over the relative merits of contrastive analysis and error analysis has persisted for some time. In general, proponents of error analysis have been more convincing. However, although the weaknesses of contrastive analysis have been extensively discussed, little has been said about the potential for corresponding weaknesses in error analysis. Six areas in error analysis which exhibit potential weaknesses are: (1) the analysis of errors in isolation; (2) the classification of identified errors; (3) statements of error frequency; (4) the identification of points of difficulty; (5) the ascription of causes to systematic errors; (6) the biased nature of sampling procedures. These together limit the usefulness of error analysis in describing the acquisition process of the second language learner. As a result the wisdom of using error analysis as the exclusive basis for the development of teaching materials is questioned.

On Directness in Communicative Language Teaching

* We have read with interest Scott Thornburys reaction to our commentary on communicative language teaching (CLT) (Vol. 31, No. 1, Spring 1997). Colleagues in the EFL/ESL profession work in very diverse linguistic, cultural, and institutional contexts, and therefore we specifically invited comments on our essay, in which we highlighted a new trend in CLT that involves a gradual shift within communicative teaching methodology towards a more direct approach that we called the principled communicative approach. Thornburys response is thus a welcome contribution to the discussion, and it is particularly interesting in that he adopts an EFL perspective; that is, he considers the type of language instruction that takes place primarily in a classroom setting in which learners do not experience any significant regular contact with L2 speakers. This type of language teaching is probably the most common form of L2 instruction in the world, yet we believe that it is often underrepresented in the professional literature and at international conferences.

The grammar, meaning, and referential functions of else

Although else is recognized as a cohesive device (e.g. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 76), it has received relatively little attention in the literature. To help remedy the situation, this article investigates how native speakers use else in both written and spoken discourse. We first review the literature for a description of the meaning(s) of else , then identify its most common meaning as reflected in its frequency of use in American English native-speaker discourse. More specifically, we undertake a quantitative analysis of the frequency and distribution of different types of else constructions, as well as a qualitative analysis of how else functions as a referential and cohesive marker. The unique referential role of else is then highlighted by contrasting it with its closest synonym, namely other . It is shown that these two referential and cohesive markers complement each other, with else playing a less specified semantic role than other .