A New Approach to English Pedagogical Grammar: The Order of Meanings [1 ed.] 9780367272715, 9781138227118, 9781315396668

Citation preview

A New Approach to English Pedagogical Grammar

This book proposes a meaning-order approach to pedagogical grammar (MAP Grammar) as a practical pedagogical approach in ESL and EFL contexts by teaching grammar through an easy-to-understand three-dimensional model. MAP Grammar takes the clause as the fundamental unit of English and describes it with meaning units, thus allowing visualizable associations between individual grammatical items. In addition, MAP Grammar reduces the commonly used five or seven clause patterns into one meaning-based clause structure for teaching and learning by focusing on the order of meanings. As such, MAP Grammar makes syllabus design, teaching, and learning easier in the following manner. • • •

A road map shows teachers and learners where to start and where to go next through dynamic associations between individual grammatical items. Instruction relies on meaning, rather than metalanguage, which can reduce learning burden and increase motivation. The meaning-based clause structure allows teachers to attend to global errors and learners to communicate successfully in English.

Akira Tajino is Professor of Educational Linguistics and Director of the International Academic Research and Resource Center for Language Education (i-ARRC) at Kyoto University, Japan. His research interests include EAP, classroom research and pedagogical grammar. He is a recipient of the JACET (Japan Association of College English Teachers) Award for excellence in teaching (2011) and the JACET Award for excellence in academic publication (2014). He is the (co) author/editor of more than 20 books, including Researching Language Teaching and Learning: An Integration of Practice and Theory (Peter Lang, 2009) and Team Teaching and Team Learning in the Language Classroom: Collaboration for Innovation in ELT (Routledge, 2016), and he has published articles in academic and professional journals. He has served on the editorial panel of several journals, including Oxford’s ELT Journal.

Routledge Research in Language Education

The Routledge Research in Language Education series provides a platform for established and emerging scholars to present their latest research and discuss key issues in Language Education. This series welcomes books on all areas of language teaching and learning, including but not limited to language education policy and politics, multilingualism, literacy, L1, L2 or foreign language acquisition, curriculum, classroom practice, pedagogy, teaching materials, and language teacher education and development. Books in the series are not limited to the discussion of the teaching and learning of English only. For more information about the series, please visit www.routledge.com. Books in the series include Team Teaching and Team Learning in the Language Classroom Collaboration for innovation in ELT Edited by Akira Tajino, Tim Stewart and David Dalsky Teaching EFL Learners Shadowing for Listening Developing learners’ bottom-up skills Yo Hamada Teacher Agency and Policy Response in English Language Teaching Edited by Patrick C. L. Ng and Esther F. Boucher-Yip The Space and Practice of Reading A case study of reading and social class in Singapore Chin Ee Loh Asian English Language Classrooms Where theory and practice meet Handoyo Puji Widodo, Alistair Wood and Deepti Gupta A New Approach to English Pedagogical Grammar The Order of Meanings Edited by Akira Tajino

A New Approach to English Pedagogical Grammar The Order of Meanings

Edited by Akira Tajino

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Akira Tajino; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Akira Tajino to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-22711-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-39666-8 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

Foreword

viii

TH O M AS B L O OR A ND MERIEL BL O O R

Notes on contributors

x

Introduction: Why this book now?

1

AKI RA TAJ I N O

PART I

A meaning-order approach to pedagogical grammar (MAP Grammar): Theoretical background 1 MAP Grammar: A systemic approach to ELT

7 9

AKI RA TAJ I N O

2 Pedagogical grammar: How should it be designed?

26

Y O S U KE YAN A S E

3 Pedagogical grammar: A theoretical background from the perspective of applied linguistics

39

Y O I C H I WATARI

4 MAP Grammar: A cognitive grammar perspective

51

KAZU M I TAN IGU CHI

PART II

MAP Grammar and issues in ELT 5 MAP Grammar and ESP: Beyond the classroom H AJ I M E TE RA U CH I A ND S AYA KO MA S WA NA

63 65

vi

Contents

6 MAP and SLA: Teaching English to young learners in the EFL classroom

73

EM I KO I ZU MI

7 MAP Grammar and ICT applications

83

TO S H I Y U KI KA NA MA RU A ND DA NIEL RO Y PEAR CE

8 MAP Grammar and motivation

95

D AVI D D AL S KY, R YA N W. S MIT HERS A ND YOSHINAR I SASAK I

9 MAP Grammar and instructional design

103

S AC H I TAKAHA S H I, DA NIEL RO Y P EA RCE AND DAV ID DALSK Y

10 Visualizing MAP Grammar: Utilizing visual aids to integrate the teaching of linguistic structure and content knowledge

116

TI M S TE WART

11 MAP Grammar and vocabulary

128

Y O S U KE S ASA O

12 MAP Grammar and listening

137

KY O KO H O S O GO S HI, Y U KA HIDA KA A ND DANIEL R OY PEAR CE

13 MAP Grammar and relative clauses in EFL learners’ writing

148

N O RI KO KU RIH A RA , KEI KAWA NIS HI A ND K IYO SAK AMOTO

14 Voices from ‘practitioners’: A collaborative exploration of MAP Grammar in an EFL classroom

160

Y O S H I TAKA KAT O , H IRO NO RI WATA RI A ND FR ANCESCO BOLSTAD

PART III

MAP Grammar: Practice reports and lesson plans

173

15 Developing a base of English expressions using MAP Grammar

175

TO M O KO J OJIMA , HIS A E O YA BU A ND Y O KO JINNOUCHI

16 Communication and critical thinking with MAP Grammar H I RO S H I N A KA GAWA A ND Y O S U KE IS H II

185

Contents

17 MAP Grammar and recitation/reproduction activities

vii

196

KEI O KU ZU M I

18 A stepwise application of MAP Grammar for speaking

202

TAI KI YAM AO KA

19 Role-play interviews with MAP Grammar

212

R YAN W. S M I TH ERS

20 Presentation projects with MAP Grammar

222

H I RO S H I YAMA DA

21 MAP on the job: Applying the order of meanings to an English for occupational purposes setting

230

J AM ES W. G RAY

Epilogue: A message for teachers

239

AKI RA TAJ I N O

Index

241

Foreword

It is with great pleasure that we introduce the work of Professor Akira Tajino and his research group at Kyoto University, supported by eminent scholars from other institutions in Japan, including Professor Hajime Terauchi, President of the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET). All the contributors have broad experience of language teaching research and practice. In this volume, they present readers with a new perspective of pedagogical grammar (PG) and its use in the teaching of English. Their innovative approach applies the work of major functional linguists, notably M.A.K. Halliday, to build the core of a practical framework for a grammar that is accessible to teachers and learners and which has been tried and tested in Japanese classrooms. In the present international context, there is an increasing emphasis on language for communicative purposes in the fields of commerce, culture, science and law, and the demand for communicative ability in English is paramount from primary to tertiary levels. Professor Tajino’s interdisciplinary research group reflects on the need for a PG that can support appropriate syllabuses and methodologies for communication in a variety of contexts. This is the motivation behind the development of what they have termed a ‘Meaning-Order Approach to Pedagogical Grammar’ (MAP Grammar), which is devised to help teachers and teacher trainers design courses that show the learner why they are learning a particular grammatical point, how to use it, and where to use it. The volume is structured to include both a discussion of theoretical issues that incorporates an explanation of the principles and aims of the project and an account of how MAP Grammar can be used in practice, with examples from various teaching situations, ranging from primary beginners’ levels to English for Specific Purposes in higher education. Part 1 focuses on the nature of PGs and its relationship to current issues in the teaching of English. Part 2 outlines the structure of MAP Grammar and presents several case studies demonstrating its effectiveness through empirical data analysis and interpretation. It further includes a discussion of how the grammar can contribute to syllabus design. Of particular current interest is how the MAP proposals could relate to the introduction of ‘content-based instruction’ that has been proposed for the high schools in Japan by the Ministry of Education. Part 3 presents examples of materials and ready-to-use lesson plans already developed by practising teachers.

Foreword

ix

The contributors have wide-ranging academic backgrounds from linguistics, applied linguistics, educational linguistics and language teaching to social psychology and practitioner research. The aim is that the multi-disciplinary approach here will lend strength to the development of really useful pedagogic grammar. Every author, whether working alone or as part of a group, offers his or her unique interpretation of MAP Grammar, and each chapter builds on the others in an attempt to form a comprehensive picture of how language teachers and course designers might employ these ideas practically. Taking into account the broad communicative functions of language and the number of purposes that language can serve, we can appreciate how this combined experience supports the present volume by bringing issues of language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing especially), discourse and vocabulary to the grammatical debate. Although grammar can be said to underlie all instances of language use, the advances in scientific linguistics over the past hundred years have shown us just how complex the systems underlying English are. In fact, current research and attempts at machine translation indicate that we still have much more to learn about how languages relate to each other in this respect. Nevertheless, as Professor Tajino and his colleagues rightly claim, the rich complexity of theoretical linguistics is not for the language classroom. It is not surprising that some teachers have rejected the teaching of grammar altogether, especially when the grammar taught is beyond the competence of the students and bears little relation to their communicative needs. The priority is for practical pedagogic grammars, closely related to the requirements and level of the learners. This volume offers such a model, guided by decades of cumulative theoretical work and practical experience, planned in detail and presented by its practitioners. There is no doubt that this work will be of interest to course designers, teacher trainers and practising teachers alike, both in Japan and around the world. Thomas Bloor (Fellow, Aston University) and Meriel Bloor (Fellow, University of Warwick)

Notes on contributors

Editor Akira Tajino, Ph.D., is Professor of Educational Linguistics and Director of the International Academic Research and Resource Center for Language Education (i-ARRC) at Kyoto University, Japan. His research interests include English for Academic Purposes (EAP), classroom research and pedagogical grammar (PG). He is a recipient of the JACET Award for excellence in teaching (2011) and the JACET Award for excellence in academic publication (2014). He is the (co) author/editor of more than 20 books, including Researching Language Teaching and Learning: An Integration of Practice and Theory (Peter Lang, 2009) and Team Teaching and Team Learning in the Language Classroom: Collaboration for Innovation in ELT (Routledge, 2016), and he has published articles in academic and professional journals. He has served on the editorial panel of several journals, including Oxford’s ELT Journal. orcid.org/0000-0002-4591-4266

Contributors Francesco Bolstad is professor and HOD of clinical English at Nara Medical University. As a New Zealand-qualified teacher with over 20 years of classroom experience, he is first and foremost an educational practitioner. His research interests include evidence based teaching, English for Specific Purposes (ESP), collaborative teaching models and content-based language instruction. orcid. org/0000-0003-1066-2588 David Dalsky, Ph.D., is an associate professor of social psychology and a founding member of the International Academic Research and Resource Center for Language Education (i-ARRC) at Kyoto University. He is interested in using EAP, Exploratory Practice and Team Learning for e-classroom intercultural collaborative projects, which involve materials development related to indigenous psychological concepts in Japan, China, Indonesia and Germany. orcid. org/0000-0002-2280-1277 James W. Gray is an English instructor at the National University of Fukui. He holds an MBA, an MA in TESOL and is currently pursuing his Ph.D. at Kyoto

Notes on contributors

xi

University. He specializes in semantic approaches to PG within a variety of taskbased English language learning contexts. orcid.org/0000-0001-6705-7886 Yuka Hidaka is an assistant professor of English Education at the Education Center at Kagoshima University, where she teaches first-year core English courses and English for general academic purposes. Her primary research and teaching interests center on academic listening instruction and task-based language teaching. orcid.org/0000-0001-8496-6379 Kyoko Hosogoshi is currently a lecturer at the Faculty of Letters at Kyoto Prefectural University. She has taught on EAP courses at various universities in Japan. Her research interests include academic listening instruction utilizing advance organizers and textual information. She has also investigated skill-integrated tasks for task-based language teaching. orcid.org/0000-0001-9183-5609 Yosuke Ishii teaches at Tokai University. His areas of interest include pragmatics, critical thinking and materials development. He has written several English as a foreign language (EFL) textbooks. orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-8885 Emiko Izumi, Ph.D., is Professor of English Language Education and Applied Linguistics at Kyoto University of Education in Kyoto, Japan. Her primary interests are communication strategies, learner autonomy, evaluation and teaching English to young learners, with a special focus on literacy development. She is also involved in pre-service and in-service teacher training. orcid. org/0000-0001-8472-6535 Yoko Jinnouchi is the vice principal of Ryukoku Junior and Senior High School in Saga Prefecture, Japan. She was a former chair of the Saga Prefectural JHS English Teachers’ Association. She has developed and conducts research on the ‘Saga Method’ learning strategy and facilitated cultural sharing programs utilizing the Internet for classroom video conferences with schools abroad. orcid.org/0000-0002-4186-9699 Tomoko Jojima has 20 years of English teaching experience at the junior high school level in Saga Prefecture. She is interested in teaching writing skills and has developed MAP Grammar materials to support her students’ learning. orcid.org/000-0002-4469-9234 Toshiyuki Kanamaru is an associate professor in the International Academic Research and Resource Center for Language Education at Kyoto University. He holds a Ph.D. in human and environmental studies from Kyoto University. His research interests include cognitive linguistics, natural language processing, vocabulary acquisition and academic writing teaching. orcid. org/0000-0002-3813-1554 Yoshitaka Kato is a lecturer in the Faculty of General Education at Chubu University, Japan. He teaches EAP classes utilizing various small group activities. His research interests include classroom research, cooperative and

xii

Notes on contributors collaborative language learning and task-based language education. orcid. org/0000-0003-3335-8802

Kei Kawanishi is a lecturer at Mukogawa Women’s University, Japan. Her research interests include writing instruction, feedback and genre-based pedagogy. She is interested in developing academic literacies of learners by unifying reading and writing. orcid.org/0000-0001-6082-4165 Noriko Kurihara is currently teaching at the tertiary level but has more than 30 years of English teaching experience at the high school level. Her research interests include writing and autonomy. She is especially interested in the effects of peer reviewing in writing instruction. orcid.org/0000-0003-4994-1365 Sayako Maswana, Ph.D., is lecturer in the Foreign Language Education Center at Ochanomizu University, Tokyo. She is currently conducting research on genre analysis. She has published articles in journals such as the Journal of Asia TEFL, Ampersand and the Asian ESP Journal. orcid.org/0000-0001-5622-1281 Hiroshi Nakagawa is an English instructor at Tokai University. He completed an MS in education, ESOL from Fort Hays State University in Hays, Kansas, specializing in cultural diversity and English language learning. His collaborative research has involved the tracking of oral proficiency using blog activities and critical thinking skills. orcid.org/0000-0001-8080-8402 Kei Okuzumi is an English teacher at a public junior high school in Saitama Prefecture, Japan. He has shared numerous teaching ideas and resources with other teachers through his blog over the last decade, and he is a regular contributor to The English Teachers’ Magazine. orcid.org/0000-00030051-4610 Hisae Oyabu is principal of Johoku Junior High School and serves as the Chair of the Saga Prefectural JHS English Teachers’ Association. She is eager to improve the level of English teaching in Saga. She regards the MAP Grammar method as an effective teaching method and encourages its use throughout the prefecture. orcid.org/000-0002-7625-0108 Daniel Roy Pearce is a doctoral candidate at the Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University. He has five years of teaching experience at the secondary level in the Yamagata Prefecture of northeast Japan, and has been a summer lecturer at Nara Women’s University. His research interests include team teaching, teacher training and PG. orcid. org/0000-0003-4984-6405 Kiyo Sakamoto is an adjunct associate professor at the University of Shiga Prefecture, Japan. Her academic interests include the use of stories and poems in EFL writing instruction. She is a co-author of Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom (edited by Masayuki Teranishi, et al.; Palgrave, 2015). orcid.org/0000-0002-3200-9662

Notes on contributors

xiii

Yoshinari Sasaki has 20 years of English teaching experience at the high school level. He is an author of the textbook, LANDMARK Fit English Communication I, II and III, approved by the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT). In 2014, he participated in a Ministry of Foreign Affairs Programme which sent young English teachers to the United States. orcid. org/0000-0003-2516-7133 Yosuke Sasao, Ph.D., is an associate professor of applied linguistics in the Institute for Liberal Arts and Sciences at Kyoto University, Japan. His research interests include vocabulary acquisition, language assessment, PG and academic writing. His articles have been published in journals such as Language Teaching Research, Language Testing, and RELC Journal. orcid. org/0000-0002-2981-1734 Ryan W. Smithers is a full-time lecturer at Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan. He is also currently a Ph.D. student at Kyoto University and chief editor for the Osaka JALT Journal. His 18 years of TEFL experience have inspired his research interests in PG, reflective practice and lifelong learning. orcid. org/0000-0002-2770-5583 Tim Stewart is a founding faculty member of the International Academic Research and Resource Center for Language Education (i-ARRC) at Kyoto University. He has been an associate editor of the TESOL Journal since 2009 and is the editor of the new TESOL International Association book series Voices from the TESOL Classroom. orcid.org/0000-0003-3394-8183 Akira Tajino (see editor entry). Sachi Takahashi is currently an associate professor in the International Academic Research and Resource Center for Language Education (i-ARRC) at Kyoto University, Japan. She received her MA and Ph.D. in International Cultural Studies from Tohoku University. Her research interests include instructional design, EAP, TBLT, materials development and e-Learning. orcid. org/0000-0003-0512-6553 Kazumi Taniguchi, Ph.D., is professor of cognitive linguistics at Kyoto University. She received a doctorate from Osaka University in 2004. After teaching at the Faculty of Education of Osaka Kyoiku University for 13 years, she moved to the Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies at Kyoto University in 2012, where she teaches classes of general English and cognitive linguistics. orcid.org/0000-0001-6136-0534 Hajime Terauchi, Ph.D., is Professor of English Language in the Department of Commerce, Faculty of Commerce, Takachiho University, Tokyo. He has a BA in Civil Law (Keio University, Japan), MA in English Language Teaching (University of Warwick, U.K.) and Ph.D. in English Language Teaching (University of Warwick, U.K.). He is President of JACET. orcid. org/0000-0002-4602-5612

xiv

Notes on contributors

Hironori Watari is currently an adjunct associate professor in the Institution for Promotion of General Education at the University of Shiga Prefecture, Japan. His research interests include EAP, second language writing education and PG. orcid.org/0000-0002-7060-9175 Yoichi Watari, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at Shizuoka University, Japan, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on methodologies for EFL learning/teaching and research methods in applied linguistics. He completed his Ph.D. in education at Hokkaido University. His research interests include PG and material/curriculum development for TEFL. orcid.org/0000-0002-3952-9388 Hiroshi Yamada holds a BA and MA in education from Kyoto University, Japan. He has published articles in journals of English education. He has nearly ten years of teaching experience at junior and senior high schools. His research interests include vocabulary learning and academic presentation. orcid.org/0000-0002-6549-4123 Taiki Yamaoka is a teacher at Hiroshima University Junior and Senior High School, Japan. He has 17 years of teaching experience at the secondary level, and he is also engaged in teacher training at the college level. His interests as a teacher are the teaching of speaking and writing, PG, collaborative learning and individualized instruction in a classroom setting. orcid. org/0000-0002-3350-3259 Yosuke Yanase, Ph.D., is professor of applied linguistics at the Graduate School of Education at Hiroshima University, Japan. He employs philosophical approaches to (re)examine issues of language education. Inspired by G. Lakoff (linguist), M. Johnson, J. Dewey (philosophers), A. Damasio (neuroscientist), M. Noguchi and T. Takeuchi (Japanese body artists) amongst others. He is currently interested in the issue of embodiment. orcid. org/0000-0003-3978-5514

Introduction Why this book now? Akira Tajino

I have seen so many students who have problems with grammar and use of language . . . . the students who come to see me often tell me that they don’t know where to start . . . . There are too many technical terms to learn and rules that seem to be broken all the time. (Sinclair, 2010, p. 2; italics mine)

We, as teachers or teacher trainers of English as a second or foreign language (ESL or EFL), would probably agree with the teacher above. Anecdotal evidence from the language classroom suggests that: 1) learners often do not know where to start with grammar because no road map of grammar has yet been made available to them; 2) there are too many technical terms to learn and teach (e.g., Subject, Object, and Complement), which we often feel obligated to use in order to explain, rather than encourage use of, grammar; and 3) there are so many grammatical items to learn and teach that are not arranged in a systemic way, and more often than not, are presented to learners in seemingly arbitrary lists. All of these factors may make it difficult to learn and teach English grammar. As Crystal (2004) argues, English grammar is not a neat, regular phenomenon, and its rules have many exceptions. While the rules and their exceptions cannot be changed by teachers, we believe that grammar can be arranged in a meaningful, systemic way so that it can be made to look simpler and neater, and thus easier to learn and teach. This is what we aim to do in this book. We present a new, communication-oriented, Meaning-Order Approach to Pedagogical Grammar (or MAP Grammar).1 It should be noted here that “[p]edagogical grammar is a slippery concept” (Little, 1994, p. 99) and has various definitions (see Dirven, 1990). In this book, what we mean by ‘pedagogical grammar’ (PG) is the type of grammar designed for teaching and learning in ESL/EFL contexts. Accordingly, as the book title shows, we are concerned with an approach to the teaching and learning of English grammar. That is, this volume is neither a collection of research papers on grammar education (see, for example, Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Odlin, 1994; Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1988) nor an alternative to grammar books dealing with

2

Akira Tajino

detailed descriptions of each grammatical item (see, for example, Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia, 2016; Swan & Walter, 1997).

Teaching and learning issues Where to start with grammar? Since English is a fixed-word-order language (Pinker, 1994), one approach to address this question would be to start with a sentence or a clause. In fact, from the perspective of applied linguistics, errors with word order can be regarded as ‘global errors’, because they impede meaning and interfere with communication (Burt, 1975). For successful communication, this is the type of error that must be avoided at all cost. Considering this, the clause structure can serve as the starting point for teaching and learning English grammar, which will be approached from the perspective of meanings (see Chapter 1 for more detail).

Avoiding technical terms as much as possible How has the English clause structure typically been taught or learnt? A common way of teaching grammar employs the seven clause patterns or sentence patterns in which technical terms such as Subject (S), Object (O), and Complement (C) are used. We suggest that such metalanguage terms be a hindrance rather than an aid to learners. For communicative purposes, an attempt is made to represent semantic roles such as Agent and Action with everyday language. In other words, we use Whunits (e.g., Who, What, Where, When) to represent meaning units by referring to Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics – i.e., Participant, Process, and Circumstance (see Halliday, 1994; de Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2015). This would make it possible to arrive at one clause pattern, which is called the Order of Meanings.

The order of meanings The Order of Meanings refers to ‘Who > Does (Is) >Who(m)/What (How) > Where > When’. Taking the sentence ‘David planted a flower in the garden’ as an example, which of the following four ways would be more user-friendly and comprehensible in terms of the different words used? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Subject Agent Participant Who

Verb Action Process Does

Object Goal Participant What

Adverbial Location Circumstance Where

As shown in the fourth row, MAP Grammar employs the everyday language of Who, Does and What.

Introduction 3 Arranging grammatical items for systemic teaching and learning Without the whole picture of grammar, how is it possible to decide where to start or to know how near or far one is to achieving a given goal? The role that MAP Grammar might play here could be explained through the metaphor of a tourist. Imagine there is a tourist who wants to go to the Kyoto Imperial Palace from Kyoto Station. What kind of map would she need? Would she need a collection of discrete detailed maps or a simplified, single map showing the broad outline of the city? We believe the most tourist-friendly map would show the easiest way to get from Kyoto Station to the Kyoto Imperial Palace, without overly detailed descriptions of side streets (see Figure 0.1). A map such as this, simplified, but with a clear starting point and end goal, would be much more useful for the tourist. We suggest that it is possible to create such a road map for English grammar. This map will form a grammatical knowledge base for learners, and provide a framework for filling in the gaps with the more detailed intricacies of grammar as the learner becomes more proficient. Until now, each particular grammatical item is learnt or taught one by one with little or no understanding of how they are interrelated. In this traditional approach, the job of associating the items (or say, connecting the dots between stations on the map) is left to each learner. With the Order of Meanings, and the Wh-units referring to the clause structure as shown earlier, it is possible to arrange grammar rules that may look simpler and neater, and thus easier to learn and teach. In doing so, a two-dimensional approach will first be taken (see Culler, 1976): the Order of Meanings on the horizontal axis and grammatical items on the vertical axis (a fuller map of English grammar may also be expressed in a three-dimensional model, as will be shown in Chapter 1). Such an approach will provide both learners and teachers with a clear picture of the ‘main roads’ of English grammar. Of course, we are not suggesting that the more detailed descriptions of grammar and grammar instruction that have previously been laid out are unnecessary. Rather, we suggest that providing the learners and teachers with an idea of the whole picture of English grammar will help them with the finer details of grammar later on. That is, this extensive ‘road map’ will let them know where they are now and where they need to go next. This book provides this road map in the form of MAP Grammar. Prior to an overview of this book, however, it should be noted that our focus is on the main road (i.e., the Order of Meanings), and we do not deal with sidestreet destinations such as punctuation, spelling, and the use of prepositions. This does not at all mean that we take the side streets lightly. Importantly, while the roots of MAP Grammar stem from an EFL environment, the pedagogy is fully applicable to any language learning and teaching context.

Figure 0.1 A map of Kyoto

Introduction 5

The three parts of this volume Part One provides a description of our new approach to PG. Chapter 1 introduces MAP Grammar and discusses what it is, how it can be used, and why it is necessary. Chapter 2 discusses the nature of PG and the role of MAP Grammar from the viewpoint of philosophy in a manner that is relevant to practitioners. Chapter 3 summarizes key issues in the teaching of grammar from an applied linguistics perspective, while Chapter 4 concludes Part 1 by discussing the nature of MAP Grammar from a cognitive grammar perspective. Part Two discusses MAP Grammar and issues related to language education. Some of the issues touch upon English for Specific Purposes (ESP), instructional design, motivation, ICT applications, vocabulary acquisition, as well as collaboration in the language classroom. Also, several chapters (including Chapters 12 and 13) provide empirical data to support the effectiveness of MAP Grammar relevant to particular language skills, such as writing and listening. Part Three (Chapters 15 through 21) provides a set of practice reports and lesson plans for the English language classroom that incorporate MAP Grammar instruction. Each chapter has been authored by practising teachers and provides either a practice report of MAP instruction or an outline of lessons that include the time and materials required. The lessons introduced in this part illustrate how the L1 aids MAP Grammar instruction, while others require the use of the L2 (English) alone. Thus, these lessons may be readily adapted by readers who are practitioners in both EFL and ESL contexts. The book concludes with a message addressed to teachers and teacher trainers who we hope will find it most meaningful and beneficial, as this is a book by teachers, for teachers.

Note 1 MAP Grammar was first proposed by Akira Tajino as Imijun (in Japanese, Imi = meanings and jun = the order; e.g., 1995, 1999, 2011, 2012, 2014). It should be noted that similar approaches or models have been proposed and employed in other contexts (e.g., Firsten, 2002), although such models lack some key distinctions (such as isolating the verb as an individual meaning unit) which the Imijun approach considers vital for pedagogy.

References Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53–63. doi:10.2307/3586012 Crystal, D. (2004). Rediscover grammar (3rd ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education. Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. London: Fontana Press. de Oliveira, L. C., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dirven, R. (1990). Pedagogical grammar. Language Teaching, 23(1), 1–18. doi:10.1017/S0261444800005498 Firsten, R. (2002). The ELT grammar book: A teacher-friendly reference guide. San Francisco: Alta Book Center Publishers.

6

Akira Tajino

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.). (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Celce-Murcia, M. (2016). The grammar book: Form, meaning, and use for English language teachers (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning. Little, D. (1994). Words and their properties: Arguments for a lexical approach to pedagogical grammar. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 99–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Odlin, T. (Ed.). (1994). Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pinker, S. (1994). Language instinct. New York: William Morrow & Company. Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1988). Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings. New York: Newbury House. Sinclair, C. (2010). Grammar: A friendly approach (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education. Swan, M., & Walter, C. (1997). How English works: A grammar practice book. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tajino, A. (1995). Eikaiwa eno saitankyori [Shortcut to English conversation]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Tajino, A. (1999). Tsukuru eigo wo tanoshimu [Fun with creative English]. Tokyo: Maruzen. Tajino, A. (2011). Imijun eisakubun no susume [Imijun: The key to English composition]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Tajino, A. (2012). Gakushusha nitotte yoriyoibunpo towa nanika: Imijun no teian [MAP Grammar as a learner-friendly grammar]. In Y. Ohtsu (Ed.), Gakushueibunpou o minaoshitai [A review of learner’s English grammar] (pp. 157–175). Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Tajino, A. (2014). NHK kisoeigo: Imijun kakikomi renshuchou [NHK English basics: Imijun writing workbook]. Tokyo: NHK Publishing Inc.

Part I

A meaning-order approach to pedagogical grammar (MAP Grammar) Theoretical background

1

MAP Grammar A systemic approach to ELT Akira Tajino

This chapter describes the nature and theoretical background of MAP Grammar and demonstrates how it may be applied to the teaching and learning of English grammar. As noted in the Introduction, there is a need for grammar road maps for teachers and learners. A review of grammar course books used worldwide by ESL/EFL learners and teachers shows that the collection of essential grammatical items is typically listed in a simple way, with the first unit covering the ‘present tense’, and the second unit the ‘past tense’, which is then followed by ‘present perfect’, and so on. Yet critical questions about such a presentation of English grammar features should be addressed: ‘Why is each grammatical item typically arranged to stand alone, often without explaining the connections to other items?’ and ‘Why is the order of introducing grammatical items so similar in many of the books?’ Given the dominant use of such materials, how can grammar be taught and learnt in a systemic way? I suggest that it is necessary to provide a road map of English grammar with a clear starting point which has a connection to the end goal. Teachers and learners need a grammar map which clearly shows interrelations among grammatical items, and this is what MAP Grammar aims to offer.

The significance of a holistic view MAP Grammar involves a dynamic approach to language pedagogy. It provides a way to visualize English grammar that shows the whole picture of grammar revealing interrelations among grammatical items. In this way, it may serve as a road map, allowing grammar to be taught and learnt in a systemic way. How should grammar be learnt and taught? With some empirical evidence from observation, Nunan (1998, pp. 101–102) argues that grammar learning should not be described as constructing a wall which is “erected one linguistic block at a time”, but rather like “growing a garden”; thus, he proposes an organic approach to grammar teaching. The conventional approach involves a systematic way to teach because it allows us to teach one grammatical item “at a time, in a sequential, step-by-step fashion” so that “learners [may] acquire one grammatical item at a time” (Nunan, 1998, p. 101). Like the detailed discrete map discussed

10

Akira Tajino

in the Introduction, this approach may often fail to show learners interrelations among the grammatical items. The organic approach, on the other hand, would allow us to teach in a systemic way so that ‘emergent properties’ (see Tajino, 2009) might appear in the course of teaching and learning through a revelation of the connections between grammatical items; that is, certain characteristics of the language may emerge as a result of teaching dynamically. This involves the teaching of a particular item by relating it to another one at the same time, or by teaching more than one item at the same time. To do this, we would be required to design a layout (i.e., the whole picture) of a complete organic grammar garden. What does an entire grammar look like, and how should it be taught? This is what the present chapter aims to discuss.

Designing a grammar map: A two-dimensional approach In order to design a grammar map in which the grammatical items are related to one another, we have taken a two-dimensional approach by referring to the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, a founder of modern linguistics. In introducing Saussure’s syntagmatic and paradigmatic approach, Culler (1976) uses a food-system metaphor (Figure 1.1). He states, In the food system, for example, one defines on the syntagmatic axis the combinations of courses which can make up meals of various sorts; and each course or slot can be filled by one of a number of dishes which are in paradigmatic contrasts with one another (one wouldn’t combine roast beef and lamb chops in a single meal: they would be alternatives on any menu). (p. 104)

・Salad ・Soup ・Cheese

・Beef ・Fish ・Chicken

・Coffee ・Tea ・Ice cream

Appetizer

Main

Dessert

Figure 1.1 Food system: A two-dimensional approach

MAP Grammar

11

Thus, the typical flow in Western food culture, ‘appetizer > main dish > dessert’ can be used to represent the ‘axis of combination’ on a horizontal axis, and the contents of the course, the ‘axis of selection’ (e.g., beef, chicken or fish as the main dish) on a vertical axis. In this way, it is possible to describe English grammar by the ‘axis of combination of words or phrases’ (i.e., a sentence or clause) and the ‘axis of selection of grammatical items’ each of which can be associated with a particular part of the clause. In this way, the syntagmatic (i.e., horizontal) axis and the paradigmatic (i.e., vertical) axis will be used in drawing the grammar map.

Clause structure on the horizontal axis and grammatical items on the vertical axis Clause structure: The main road of MAP Grammar MAP Grammar starts with the following assumptions and research findings from linguistics and applied linguistics: 1.

2. 3.

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research has revealed that every second or foreign language learner makes grammatical errors (see, for example, Corder, 1981; Ellis, 1994), and such learner errors can be differentiated in terms of gravity for communicative purposes – i.e., ‘global errors’ and ‘local errors’ (see Burt, 1975). Since English is a fixed-word-order language (Pinker, 1994), errors in its clause structure, which can be regarded as ‘global errors’, should be avoided. Sharing the conceptual elements with Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), the English clause structure can be viewed as a single structure consisting of ‘meaning units’ (see Halliday, 1994; de Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2015).

If this is the case, a critical question to be addressed would be ‘What kind of errors should be avoided first for communicative purposes?’ Therefore, when communicating in English, word order would be of the utmost importance as it can determine the meaning of what we say or write (Kuiper & Nokes, 2014). Considering that the English language is “a fixed-word-order, poorly inflected, subject-prominent language” (Pinker, 1994, p. 235) and that meaning can be determined by the ordering of words or phrases, errors in word order would surely impede communication. As Examples 1a and 1b show, if one reverses the word order of ‘the dog’ and ‘the biscuit’, it would result in completely different meanings. 1a. The dog ate the biscuit. (It was the dog that performed the action of eating.) 1b. The biscuit ate the dog. (It was the biscuit that performed the action of eating.???) 1c. Dog ate biscuit.

12

Akira Tajino

・Salad ・Soup ・Cheese

・Beef ・Fish ・Chicken

・Coffee ・Tea ・Ice cream

Clause structure Figure 1.2 Clause structure on a horizontal axis

In applied linguistics, such errors (as in Examples 1a and 1b) can be categorized as ‘global errors’, which are the sort of errors that impede the meaning of an utterance or sentence (see, for example, Burt, 1975). On the other hand, ‘local errors’ are those that do not necessarily distort the meaning of an utterance, such as the dropping of the third-person singular s or articles (as in Example 1c). Thus, for communicative purposes, we should help learners avoid making ‘global errors’ (e.g., errors in word order). This is not, of course, to say that reducing ‘local errors’ is not of importance, but rather it is simply a question of ‘error gravity’ – i.e., which errors to target first. Therefore, like the course meal, we can take clause structure as the main road (i.e., horizontal axis) and grammatical items as the side streets (i.e., vertical axis) of MAP Grammar (see Figure 1.2).

Clause structure: The order of meanings As we know, the so-called seven clause patterns have been most commonly used.1 This may be quite reasonable from an analytic perspective; that is, metalanguage terms (e.g., Subject and Object) are used in order to analyze English clauses, leading to the seven clause patterns. However, we should ask if this is the most appropriate way for learners if our teaching purposes include a ‘communicative aspect’ and if it is also viewed from the learners’ perspectives. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English (2006), for example, ‘to communicate’ refers to “share or exchange information, news, or ideas”. It would be fair to say that grammar should serve to meet this need, and thus, the teaching of clause structure should be meaning-based. For this purpose, we take the SFL model proposed by M.A.K. Halliday which tells us how grammar works. SFL interprets language “not as a set of structures but as a network of SYSTEMS, or interrelated sets of options for making meaning” (Halliday, 1994, p. 15), and classifies the function of language into three broad categories: the ideational, the

MAP Grammar

13

interpersonal, and the textual metafunctions. In other words, these are the “three aspects of the ways grammar makes meaning” (de Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2015, p. 47). The ideational function involves understanding and representing the world; the interpersonal one, interacting with and enacting relationships with others; and the textual one, relating what is said or written to the rest of the text (Bloor & Bloor, 2013; Coffin, Donohue, & North, 2009). Among these three aspects of language, we have chosen to focus on the ideational function (i.e., understanding and presenting ideas). From a pedagogical perspective, without the ideational function, the interpersonal and textual functions would have little or no role to play. Thus, MAP Grammar takes the ideational metafunction of SFL in a user-friendly way as the starting point. We focus on the message content, paying attention to what information is contributed by the terms Participant, Process, and Circumstance, which can be represented by Wh-groups as follows. Who Æ Does (Is) Æ Who (m)/What (How) Æ Where Æ When This is called the Order of Meanings which indicates the basic flow of English words or phrases. Please note that the parentheses as in (How) shows it can replace the word on its left (i.e., What), and the slash [/] between the third meaning unit, Who(m)/What (How), means ‘and/or’. What each meaning unit generally refers to is shown in Figure 1.3.

Meaning Units

Referents

Who

persons, things, etc.

Does(Is)

the doing, the being, etc.

Who(m)

persons, things, etc.

What

things, etc.

(How)

attributes of persons or things, etc.

Where

places, locations, directions, etc.

When

times, durations, frequencies, etc. (Options)

α

conjunctions, subordinate clauses, etc.

How

manner, means, instrument, etc.

Why

reasons, causes, purposes, etc.

Figure 1.3 Meaning units and their referents Notes: 1. The units, α (e.g., and, when, if), How (e.g., in this way, by bus) and Why (e.g., because, in order to) are optional. 2. Who and Whom can be metaphorically used in that they may also refer to What (‘things’) – e.g., The sun rises in the east. We call the ship Queen Elizabeth II.

14

Akira Tajino

Figure 1.2 would be reinterpreted as Figure 1.4, which would make it possible to illustrate Figure 1.5 in which clause structure can be represented by a single clause pattern. This allows us to develop a two-dimensional grammar model. Figure 1.5 shows how grammatical items are related to one another through the Order of Meanings. With this kind of grammar map, teachers may be able to explain to the learners what role a particular item should play, why they are teaching it, and what to teach next. As noted in the introduction, MAP Grammar seeks to avoid the use of metalinguistic terms as much as possible. In this sense, Figure 1.5 may seem like a contradiction, as it clearly employs such terms. This two-dimensional model may

・Ken ・He ・The boy

WHO

・plays ・can play ・is playing

・tennis ・soccer ・the piano

DOES(IS)

WHAT

Grammatical items (Vertical axis)

Figure 1.4 The order of meanings applied to the food-system metaphor

article

verb

article

adjective

tense

adjective

noun

progressive aspect

noun

pronoun

perfect aspect

pronoun

conjunction

to-infinitive

auxiliary verb

to-infinitive

adverb

adverb

subordinate clause

gerund

subjunctive

gerund

preposition

preposition

WHO

DOES(IS)

WHO(M)/WHAT (HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

The Order of Meanings (Horizontal axis)

Figure 1.5 An image of MAP Grammar Note. This is only one example, and grammatical items can be arranged in different ways depending on the situation.

Grammatical items (vertical axis)

MAP Grammar

15

shall (do) might (do) must (do) should (do) may (do) can (do)

Tense

Tense Tense

Tense

doing Auxiliary verbshas Isdone

Tense Tense

has been doing is doing did does

Tense Aspect

WHO

DOES(IS)

WHO(M)/WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

The Order of Meanings (Horizontal axis)

Figure 1.6 MAP Grammar: A three-dimensional approach

be expanded upon, however, by filling in the details of each item on the vertical axis (i.e., instead of using the term ‘auxiliary’, providing a list of words such as can, will, may, etc.). A teacher who wishes to avoid metalinguistic terminology may use, instead, a three-dimensional representation of MAP Grammar, as in Figure 1.6. By using this model, the teacher may freely choose to employ or avoid metalinguistic terms.

Additional theoretical considerations Before introducing some samples on how to teach with MAP Grammar, however, it seems important to discuss some additional theoretical background.

Clause structure consisting of meaning units [The transitivity structure in clauses] is concerned with a coding of the goings on: who does what in relation to whom/what, where, when, how and why. (Hasan, 1988, p. 63, Italics mine)

As the citation implies, information represented by wh-words such as Who and What would be crucial when we communicate with each other. As discrete meaning units, these could be labeled with the five Ws (i.e., Who(m), What, Where, When, Why) and How. Indeed, in our everyday communication, these ‘wh-words’ are “used to ask questions in English” (O’Grady, 2005, p. 102). It is quite

16

Akira Tajino

reasonable to regard the English clause structure consisting of meaning units or Wh-units, following a particular order, the Order of Meanings. Research into child language acquisition has made clear the importance of the Order of Meanings. It is reported that native-English-speaking children have already successfully established word order in relation to meaning (or more specifically, the order of semantic roles such as Agent and Action) even in short utterances of two to three words. “Between the late twos and the mid-threes, children’s language blooms into fluent grammatical conversation so rapidly” (Pinker, 1994, p. 269). By referring to the research conducted by Roger Brown, Pinker (1994) claims that although children may not produce a sentence like “Mother gave John lunch in the kitchen”, they can produce “strings containing all of its components, and in the correct order”, such as “Tractor go floor”, “Give doggie paper”, and “Adam put it box” (p. 269). This is indeed an interesting set of data for teachers of English, as it may encourage us to use semantic roles so that ‘Adam’ as AGENT can be mapped onto the Subject of the sentence. Each of these roles could be represented by means of the wh-words such as Who and What (e.g., Who for AGENT, Does for ACTION, Who(m) for RECIPIENT, What for OBJECT, and Where for LOCATION). Similarly, some more empirical evidence is available. Next is a set of utterances from two native-English-speaking children around the age of three (introduced in Pinker, 1989, pp. 21–22). 2a. Jay said me no. (Child A, 2;8) 2b. I said her no. (Child B, 3;1) As can be seen, these are grammatically incorrect and, to make them correct, said needs to be replaced with told. However, we can understand what is meant by these incorrect utterances. I do not intend to claim that the L2 should be taught or learnt in the same way as the L1. The crucial points here are that 1) a native-English-speaking child makes errors with usage, but not with clause structure and, more interestingly, that 2) those who hear these utterances such as their parents can understand their meanings. This would add some evidence to the claim that the mastery of clause structure is a key to communication in English.

The order of meanings and the seven clause patterns Grammar reference books usually state that most (if not all) English sentences can be categorized into seven patterns (see, for example, Crystal, 2004; Nelson, 2001; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Startvik, 1985). Let us examine if (and how) the Order of Meanings can be applied to the seven patterns to see whether or not they can be interchangeably used (Figure 1.7). As we can see, the Order of Meanings not only describes the seven clause patterns convincingly, but also includes the When unit, which the seven clause

MAP Grammar

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHOM/WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

Kate (S)

smiled (V)

Kate (S)

opened (V)

the window (O)

Kate (S)

is (V)

kind. (C)

Kate (S)

lives (V)

Kate (S)

gave (V)

me a pen (O) (O)

(yesterday).

Kate (S)

calls (V)

me Aki (O) (C)

(all the time).

Kate (S)

put (V)

her bag (O)

17

WHEN (at that time). (ten minutes ago).

in London (A)

on the table (A)

(now).

(just now).

Figure 1.7 The seven clause patterns represented by the order of meanings Notes: 1. (S): Subject; (V): Verb; (O): Object; (C): Complement; and (A): Adverbial. 2. Words in parentheses in the When unit are optional.

patterns do not share. This is for both communicative and pedagogical reasons. It is for a ‘communicative’ reason because, as is included in the five Ws, this is an important meaning unit for communication. Also, it is for a ‘pedagogical’ reason because the ‘tense’ of verbs can be taught and learnt more effectively with reference to a specific time. As far as Figure 1.6 shows, the Order of Meanings can serve as a horizontal, syntagmatic axis in MAP Grammar. The seven-clause-pattern approach, in and of itself, may not be problematic when our purpose is to classify different types of sentences and describe, explain, or talk about grammar. However, when it comes to learning and using the target language for communicative purposes, this type of instruction (as touched upon in the Introduction) would not necessarily be as easy for learners as expected. MAP Grammar, however, views grammar from the point of view of the basic order of semantic roles, such as Agent (or Participant) and Action (or Process).

The order of meanings and the three metafunctions of language Furthermore, as described earlier, MAP Grammar shares conceptual elements with Halliday’s SFL. Let us examine how the three metafunctions can be demonstrated with sentences in the Order of Meanings.

18 1.

Akira Tajino Ideational metafunction: Presenting ideas and experiences i.

I planted a flower in the garden yesterday. α

ii.

DOES (IS)

WHO(M )/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

I

planted

a flower

in the garden

yesterday.

I saw Kate at the station just now. α

2.

WHO

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M )/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

I

saw

Kate

at the station

just now.

Interpersonal metafunction: Enacting a relationship with others Different grammatical choices or clause types such as declaratives and interrogatives can be used to command in different situations. i.

I would like you to open the window. (declaratives) α

ii.

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M )/ WHAT(HOW)

I

would like

you/to open the window.

WHERE

WHEN

Could you open the window? (interrogatives) α

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M )/ WHAT(HOW)

Could

you

open

the window?

WHERE

WHEN

iii. Open the window. (imperatives) α

3.

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M )/ WHAT(HOW)

Open

the window.

WHERE

WHEN

Textual metafunction: Relating what is said, or written, to the rest of the text i.

You should try a punting tour in Cambridge in summer. (This could follow the sentence or utterance ‘What should I do in Cambridge?’) α

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M )/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

You

should try

a punting tour

in Cambridge

in summer.

MAP Grammar ii.

19

Cambridge is a good place for a punting tour in summer. (This could follow the sentence or utterance ‘Where can I enjoy a punting tour in summer?’) α WHO Cambridge

DOES (IS)

WHO(M )/ WHAT(HOW)

is

a good place for a punting tour

WHERE

WHEN in summer.

iii. Summer is the best season for a punting tour in Cambridge. (This could follow the sentence or utterance ‘Which season should I go on a punting tour in Cambridge?’) α

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M )/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

Summer

is

the best season for a punting tour

in Cambridge.

WHEN

Teaching grammar in a systemic way with MAP Grammar How might conventional grammar instruction be replaced with MAP Grammar? This section shows how MAP Grammar can be used with some example sentences. As in ‘parsing’ activities, such as those introduced by Thornbury (2005), the example sentences provided below require learners to form sentences that make sense by putting words or phrases into an Order of Meanings framework. Please note that the following only serve as examples, and there may be other possible ways to represent teaching example sentences with MAP Grammar.

Teaching the order of meanings: The horizontal axis 1.

Simple sentences i.

Declaratives: Dr. Leech taught me English grammar at Lancaster 35 years ago. α

ii.

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

Dr. Leech

taught

me/English grammar

at Lancaster

35 years ago.

Interrogatives: Do you want me to open the present here now? α

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

Do

you

want

me/to open the present

here

now?

20

Akira Tajino iii. Interrogative pronouns: What do you have in your bag? α

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

What do

you

have

(←What)

in your bag?

WHEN

Note. (←What) indicates that ‘What’ has been shifted to the beginning of the sentence.

iv. Imperatives: Shut the window at once. α

v.

2.

WHO

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

Shut

the window

WHERE

WHEN at once.

Exclamatives: How quickly he finished that! α

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

How quickly

he

finished

that!

WHERE

WHEN

Compound sentences i.

Coordinating conjunctions (and): I watched a film and she read a book. α

and

ii.

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

I

watched

a film

she

read

a book.

WHERE

WHEN

Coordinating conjunctions (but): She likes math but I don’t like it. α

but

3

DOES (IS)

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

She

likes

math

I

don’t like

it.

WHERE

WHEN

Complex sentences i.

Subordinating conjunctions (that): I think that he needs a new computer. α

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

I

think

that ____

he

needs

a new computer.

WHERE

WHEN

Note. In the WHO(M)/WHAT(HOW) box, ‘that __’ indicates that the clause in the second row of meaning order actually belongs to the What unit. In other words, it shows the hierarchical structure of English, and each of the Wh- units (and the α unit) has an embedded level of the Order of Meanings.

MAP Grammar ii.

21

Subordinating conjunctions (when): When I came home, they were cooking in the kitchen. α

WHO

DOES (IS)

When

I

came

home,

they

were cooking

in the kitchen.

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

iii. Subordinating conjunctions (when): They were cooking in the kitchen when I came home. α

WHO

DOES (IS)

They I

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

were cooking

in the kitchen

when __

came

home.

Note: The two examples (ii and iii) are representations of the same sentence, and a teacher may choose which representation they think would be most easily understood by their students.

iv. Subjunctives (if): If I got a million dollars, I would travel around the world.

v.

α

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

If

I

got

a million dollars,

I

would travel

WHERE

WHEN

around the world.

Relative pronouns (who): I know the boy who is standing over there. α

WHO

DOES (IS) WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

I

know

who

is standing

WHERE

WHEN

the boy __ over there.

vi. Relative adverbs (where): She is staying at the hotel where he works. α

where

WHO

DOES (IS)

She

is staying

he

works.

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE at the hotel__

WHEN

22

Akira Tajino vii. Relative pronouns (that): This is the dog that worried the cat that killed the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built. α

that

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT(HOW)

This

is

the dog __

that

worried

the cat __

that

killed

the rat __

that

ate

the malt __

that

lay

Jack

built.

WHERE

WHEN

in the house __

(Adapted from the famous nursery rhyme entitled The House That Jack Built. Routledge, 1878)

Teaching grammatical items: The vertical axis 1.

2.

The teaching of the ‘auxiliaries’: focusing on the Does (Is) unit When we teach auxiliary verbs such as ‘can’ and ‘must’, we may draw learners’ attention to the Does (Is) unit and arrange them on a list, so that they may make comparisons in order to understand how auxiliaries can be used to make different meanings and subtle changes in nuance (see Figure 1.8). The teaching of the ‘tense and aspect’: Does (Is) and When together We can focus on the two meaning units: Does (Is) and When, which can be taught in tandem on a vertical axis as shown in Figure 1.9.

WHO

DOES(IS)

WHO(M)/WHAT(HOW)

I /You

take

the English exam.

will take can take may take should take must take

Figure 1.8 Vertical axis: Instruction of auxiliary verbs

WHERE

WHEN

MAP Grammar

WHO

DOES(IS)

WHO(M)/WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

23

WHEN

(present) live

now

(past) lived

ten years ago

(future) am going to live

next year

(present) read

every night

(present progressive) am reading

now

(present perfect progressive) have been reading

since this morning

(present perfect) have read

three times

Figure 1.9 Vertical axis: Instruction of tense

Conclusion In this chapter, I have introduced MAP Grammar, its theoretical background, and its applications from the perspective of applied linguistics. Accepting, as a starting point, the fact that learners will make errors, I have discussed what type of errors may allow for successful communication and, conversely, what sort of errors should be avoided by learners. This discussion has paved the way to make the case for a new approach to English grammar, a two-dimensional structure with the clause (or sentence) as the base axis. This two-dimensional approach allows English grammar to be easily visualized. Such visualization allows the learners to grasp where they are in the process of their language learning, as well as what to study next, and how what they are studying fits into the bigger picture of English grammar. The key point to this approach is that the base axis, the clause or sentence, is seen as a construction based on meaning units: i.e., the Order of Meanings. This Order of Meanings shares some elements with Halliday’s SFL, particularly the ideational metafunction. By representing these units with everyday language (i.e., the Wh-units), the cognitive burden on learners may be reduced. In such a way, MAP Grammar has been shown to have a positive effect on learner motivation, a benefit which will be explored further in Part 2 of this volume. MAP Grammar takes a different approach to instruction than traditional methods which have been akin to building a wall by stacking individual blocks on top of each other one by one. Rather, the two- (or three-) dimensional

24

Akira Tajino

representations provided by MAP Grammar allow for instruction based on a comprehensive view of English grammar, with the horizontal axis (the Order of Meanings) and the vertical axis (discrete grammatical items) forming the base. As shown earlier, such instruction may reveal to learners the hierarchical nature of the English clause/sentence structure. It also allows for simple demonstrations of how meaning units interact with each other by allowing for instruction of ‘tense’ through two meaning units simultaneously. How MAP Grammar instruction is applied in the classroom may also easily be adjusted to learner language-proficiency levels, for example, by adjusting the number of words in each meaning unit, perhaps by breaking down larger noun clauses, the What unit, for lower-level students. MAP Grammar also allows identification of learner errors; e.g., identifying whether they are struggling with the horizontal axis or the vertical. As such, it makes not only grammar learning simpler for the learner, but also grammar teaching easier for the teacher. It is my sincere hope that this approach will help teachers help their students become better foreign language communicators.

Note 1 Alternatively referred to as the seven sentence patterns. Here, the more accurate terminology of clause patterns is preferred, as a sentence may be made by more than one clause (see Leech, 2006).

References Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2013). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach (3rd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53–63. doi:10.2307/3586012 Coffin, C., Donohue, J., & North, S. (2009). Exploring English grammar: From formal to functional. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, D. (2004). Rediscover grammar (3rd ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education. Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. London: Fontana Press. de Oliveira, L. C., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Hasan, R. (1988). The analysis of one poem: Theoretical issues in practice. In D. Birch & M. O’Tool (Eds.), Functions and styles (pp. 45–73). London: Edward Arnold. Kuiper, K., & Nokes, J. (2014). Theories of syntax: Concepts and case studies. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Leech, G. (2006). A glossary of English grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

MAP Grammar

25

Nelson, G. (2001). English: An essential grammar. London: Routledge. Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 101–109. doi:10.1093/elt/52.2.101 O’Grady, W. (2005). How children learn language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: William Morrow & Company. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Startvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2006). Oxford dictionary of English (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tajino, A. (2009). Understanding life in the language classroom: A systemic approach. In T. Yoshida, H. Imai, Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi, & K. Tamai (Eds.), Researching language teaching and learning: An integration of practice and theory (pp. 115–130). Bern: Peter Lang. Thornbury, S. (2005). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2

Pedagogical grammar How should it be designed? Yosuke Yanase

Imagine a boy riding an elephant. The boy knows exactly where he wants to go, but the elephant does not necessarily move that way. The boy on an elephant is a metaphor of a second language (L2) learner. The learner was taught L2 grammar, but he cannot necessarily apply the knowledge in communicative acts. In other words, his conscious knowledge does not necessarily enable action. In this chapter, we explore how we can help L2 learners communicate by means of pedagogical grammar (PG). I argue that we should change the concept of PG and take a user’s perspective rather than an analyst’s perspective. PG from the user’s perspective makes use of meaning for language use. It uses meaning compression, not theoretical compression or mathematical compression. We will not hurry to define these new technical terms now. Rather, we will begin this discussion from a basic term, grammar, and then distinguish nonconsciously embodied grammar from consciously disembodied grammar. The prototypical image of ‘grammar’ is probably the grammatical rules that you find in a grammar book. However, when we think about first language (L1) users, such grammar seems needless. In either acquisition or use of L1, we are never conscious of such grammatical rules. Nevertheless, the language that we as L1 users produce is systematic – that is, grammatical. We apparently have a ‘knowledge of language’ that constitutes our grammatical utterances. We are not conscious of the knowledge of the language because we possess it at the level of nonconsciousness.1 I would like to call this kind of knowledge of a given language nonconsciously embodied grammar.2 However, why does the conscious mind not know nonconsciously embodied grammar? The reason is simple: the mind would implode under the weight of such knowledge. If we know consciously all the activities produced by the six trillion cells in our body, the incredible amount of information will devastate the function of consciousness. In order for consciousness to be useful, the amount of information it deals with must be somewhat limited. In the neuroscientific framework of Antonio Damasio (2010), consciousness has two levels: core-consciousness and extended consciousness. Core-consciousness makes us aware of the significant events in our life that are happening ‘here and now’ in the form of attention. Extended consciousness is the higher level of consciousness that extends beyond the ‘here and now’. It combines images that

Pedagogical grammar

27

attention has produced as a by-product of its activities to recall events in the past or to simulate possible events in the future. When we learn difficult skills, nonconsciousness produces core-consciousness and then, from it, extended consciousness. Core-consciousness lets us realize important aspects of skills being learned through noticing and paying attention. Extended consciousness recalls images of related experiences in the past. However, producing consciousness requires many cognitive resources in the brain. Therefore, as we learn skills, our brain reorganizes its construction so that we can execute the skills without consciousness. If you have trained yourself in sports or music, you would likely agree that your consciousness of certain acts or movements disappeared as you became skillful. Jonathan Haidt (2006) says that what consciousness is to our action is like what a boy on the back of an elephant is to the elephant. Although the boy tries hard to drive the elephant as he wishes, what moves in the jungle, after all, is the elephant, not the boy. The boy cannot dictate the movement of the elephant exactly. All he can do is to analyze the habits of the elephant and use a rod to try to make the elephant move as he wishes. This metaphor may ring a bell to L2 learners, particularly adult learners, who cannot fully control their L2 utterances as if their tongue, mouth, and even brain were not their own. In hindsight, they may be aware of what their utterance should have been, but they were not able to realize and apply this knowledge while in the act of producing the utterance itself. The L2 learners cannot bodily realize the grammar that they know consciously. I would like to call this consciously known, but not bodily realized grammar consciously disembodied grammar. This is the grammar that we find in grammar books. It is important to know here that consciously disembodied grammar cannot replace nonconsciously embodied grammar. Is consciously disembodied grammar, then, useless? It is not useless if we use it just as the boy on the elephant uses his analysis as a guide to control the elephant. Consciously disembodied grammar should be like a guidebook that the elephant boy may compile for his friends who have not yet had the opportunity to ride on the elephant. PG should be like a guidebook that anyone can use on the elephant. However, PG has not been sufficiently designed like a guidebook (to be discussed further next). What we regard now as PG is in actuality traditional grammar that is pedagogically applied (or adapted, at best). What, then, is traditional grammar? In order to propose a new concept of PG that is different from traditional grammar, we need to know what the latter is. In the next section, I will briefly summarize traditional grammar.

Traditional grammar Although humans presumably began to use spoken language around 60,000– 100,000 years ago, we have had to wait for the emergence of written language to develop grammatical analysis. Observation and reflection are essential for grammatical analysis; without written language that is by its nature static, such analysis is almost impossible. Greek and Latin were commonly used as academic languages throughout Europe in the Middle Ages. As these languages were not

28

Yosuke Yanase

the L1 of the European scholars, the scholars complied grammar books to support their literacy in these languages. In the Early Modern Period, partly due to the need to develop unified nations, European nation-states began to publish grammar books of their own national languages. These grammar books of modern European languages borrowed the framework of the grammar books of Greek and Latin. People began to refer to the grammar that uses this framework as traditional grammar. In the Late Modern Period, when colonial expansion intensified, non-European people began to (or were made to) learn and use major European languages. In nations such as the colonized India or the non-colonized Japan, for example, the local people (mostly the elite) imported the grammar books of the style of traditional grammar that were published in European nations. In the 20th century, learning European languages accelerated as modernization (for all practical purposes, Westernization) advanced. Around this time some scholars, most notably H.E. Palmer, began to publish grammar books for L2 learners. With the spread of English after the Second World War and the further spread of ‘globalization’ towards the end of the 20th century, English has become unprecedentedly powerful. Thus, grammar books are now widely available in both international and domestic markets. However, as I stated earlier, these grammar books still adopt the framework of traditional grammar. It is true that, unlike the imported grammar books in the 19th century, many grammar books are now adapted for pedagogy, but they are not, I argue, pedagogically designed from scratch. They use the framework of traditional grammar and usually have around 10–20 chapters, each of which has 5–10 or even up to 20 sub-sections. L2 learners see far too many items with no priority indicated for their need. L2 learners must read the book from cover to cover and remember all or most of the items. This is like giving a new boy on the elephant a thick guidebook that has 20 chapters with 200 sub-sections. What is worse, the guidebook is not specifically designed for his purpose of driving the elephant. To read the guidebook, the boy must get off the elephant because reading is too demanding. If he opens the guidebook on the back of the moving elephant going in a wrong direction, he does not know which page to read first. As he struggles with the book, he may decide to throw it away. If he is an extremely intelligent boy, he may remember all the items of the grammar book. Nevertheless, once he is on the back of the moving elephant, he does not have the luxury of time to recall from all of the items the one that he needs most in that moment. It is necessary, then, to change the concept of PG and design it anew from the viewpoint of L2 learners in communication. How about giving, say, five essential items of information that purportedly cover all grammatical sentences? The boy may readily refer to a guidebook if it consists of five items. Perhaps he can remember the five items by heart to apply them for language production. This is, or was, indeed the intention of teaching the five sentence patterns of SV, SVC, SVO, SVOO and SVOC.3 Many countries around the world have used the five sentence patterns of English, but it has fallen from popularity. The reason is that the units of S (Subject),

Pedagogical grammar

29

V (Verb), O (Object), and C (Complement) are not independent units that stand on their own. They are units determined by the mutually dependent theoretical relationships with each other. Take the unit of O, for example. Object is often defined as ‘a noun or noun phrase governed by an active transitive verb’. The definition obviously assumes a prior understanding of what a transitive verb is. Without such understanding, learners may mistakenly interpret the unit of C as in ‘John’ in ‘He is John’ as the unit of O. Another complication is that the unit of O has two subcategories of DO (Direct Object) and IO (Indirect Object) in the construction of SVOO. Learners may feel confused when the teacher says that whereas ‘John’ in ‘I met John’ (SVO) is a direct object, ‘John’ in ‘I gave John a box of chocolate’ (SVOO) is IO. The unit of S may seem to be intuitively clear. However, for English learners whose L1 is Japanese, ‘Yesterday I met John’ might cause a confusion. When the sentence is, as is often done by learners, translated word by word into a quite natural Japanese sentence it becomes: ‘Kino-wa Johnni Atta’ (‘Yesterday’ with a Topic indicating postposition + zero-expression for ‘I’ + ‘John’ with an Object indicating postposition + ‘met’). Given this translation, the learners may well believe that the subject of the sentence is the word ‘Yesterday’.4 The reduction of sentence types to five patterns seemed like a beacon of hope for L2 learners. However, the reduction was a result of theoretical compression. This compression requires a good prior understanding of its theory to reduce all phrases to four units of S, V, O, and C. Unfortunately, learners without a good understanding of the theory are unable recognize these four units easily. Thus, this grammar is of little help for L2 learners who are struggling to construct a sentence in real-life situations. It often turns out that the very attempt to understand the five sentence patterns itself becomes a major obstacle for L2 learners and that is perhaps why they have faded from vogue in many countries around the world.5 However, does not this problem arise because the five sentence patterns are not theoretically refined? Is it not because the theoretical compression of the five sentence patterns is scientifically unsophisticated? The five sentence patterns indeed depend upon the mutually dependent theoretical relationships that differ in varying sentences. What will happen if we refine the theoretical compression in the spirit of mathematical clarity? Chomsky (1965) declared that a theory of grammar should not rely on the intelligence of the understanding reader (as the five sentence patterns did), but should provide an explicit analysis of the understanding that the intelligent readers possess. If Chomsky’s theory of grammar that is still developing is successful in making grammar more explicit in the sense noted earlier (and it is!), should we not develop PG upon on the shoulders of that scientific grammar? In the next section, we will briefly summarize what Chomsky’s revolution did to produce scientific grammar.

Scientific grammar Chomsky revolutionized the study of grammar. He turned it from a study of humanities into a study of natural science. Although non-Chomskyan grammar

30

Yosuke Yanase

still flourishes, Chomsky radically changed our concept of grammatical theory. The theory he started, generative grammar, is still in the process of active evolution after more than half a century. Chomsky follows the spirit of Galileo Galilei who established the basic tenet of modern natural science: that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Since that declaration, natural scientists have been explaining the natural phenomena in mathematical terms. Chomsky firmly believes that grammar, or in his terms, Universal Grammar as ‘Knowledge of Language’,6 is a theme of natural science. He has refined grammatical concepts in the manner of mathematics. Chomsky first started to describe all sentences in the form of S Æ NP VP, where NP and VP stand for Noun Phrase and Verb Phrase, respectively. In his more developed version of X’ theory (read as X-bar theory), theoretical compression is further refined; AP (Adverbial Phrase) and PP (Prepositional Phrase), as well as NP and VP, are generalized as XP. All phrases are explained in the two formula of XP Æ YP X’ and X’ Æ X ZP, where YP is a specifier and ZP is a complement.7 In the latest version of generative grammar, minimalist program, the compression is further advanced and the structure of human language is expressed in a very abstract form of Merge (α, β).8 I would like to describe this type of advanced, more rigorous and ‘explicit’ compression as mathematical compression. The mathematical compression of Merge (α, β) is, as theoretical linguists agree, an amazing compression. It is reminiscent of Einstein’s mathematical compression of E = mc2 in physics. This Chomskyan mathematical compression can be expanded to produce a countless number of grammatical sentences, just like E = mc2 can be expanded to predict a countless number of specific nuclear reactions. The representation of Merge (α, β) is simple enough. Any L2 learner can chant it. However, please recall that most people (including myself) who can recite the equation of E = mc2 cannot put the equation into use. The compression and expansion of the equation are mathematically rigorous. Mathematical compression is extremely demanding for ordinary people who may take some time to expand even a simple compression such as (a + b)3 into a3 + 3a2b + 3ab2 + b3. For laypersons who are not technically trained, mathematical compression is too formal and, more importantly, too meaningless (we will explain the concept of meaning later). Precisely for that reason, however, mathematical compression is an ideal representation for scientists who pursue scientific rigor without caring much about meaning, which is rich but vague. We may have been trying to prove what is obvious: although science is a great achievement of human civilization with its most elegant and simplest representations of the world, it is of little help for the practical needs of ordinary people. Mathematical compression is not the way forward for PG because ordinary people do not compress information in the same manner. Although generative grammar is far more refined than traditional grammar in its mathematical compression, the former is probably of less help to learners. Scientific refinement in this sense may not be so useful in the pursuit of PG.

Pedagogical grammar

31

Analyst’s perspective and user’s perspective In order to design PG anew, a radical change of perspective is necessary. Traditional grammar and scientific grammar take the perspective of the analyst. It is very important here to acknowledge that the analyst’s perspective is entirely different from the user’s perspective. They are different in terms of purpose, accessible language, time allocation, and relation with language use. The purpose of the analyst is to describe and explain the target language as completely as possible. To achieve that purpose, the analyst undertakes the burdensome task of mastering the theory that the description and explanation depend upon. The purpose of the user, on the other hand, is to use the target language, particularly to speak it, in everyday situations. Speaking is of primary importance, as listening and reading are receptive skills in which the user is not required to construct a new sentence by herself. Writing is, of course, also a productive skill, but it usually develops after speaking skills. The most arduous and perhaps most important purpose that the L2 user pursues is, therefore, to speak L2 communicatively, if not perfectly. The L2 user will inevitably commit local errors, errors that may slightly irritate linguistically sensitive native speakers but do not impede understanding of the message. Arguably, local errors should be accepted and tolerated as a natural consequence of L2 acquisition after the critical period. What the L2 user and her listener want to avoid is global errors, errors that make the understanding of the utterance impossible. A typical example of a global error in English is incorrect word order.9 To put it more precisely, the purpose of the L2 user is to speak L2 without making global errors.10 The analyst and the user are different in terms of accessible language, too. For the analyst, the target language is typically presented visually on a written medium (You may recall that the birth of grammatical analysis had to wait for the invention of written language). The analyst observes the target language from this vantage point. He has the whole sentence in front of him and can trace it with his eyes from the beginning of the sentence to the end, and vice versa. We have already suggested that in order to determine the units of S, V, O and C in the analysis of the five sentence patterns, the analyst needs to finish reading the sentence first, for the units are determined according to their mutually dependent theoretical relationships. However, the user who is struggling hard to speak in the L2 does not have the same vantage point. She is faced with two demanding tasks: selecting appropriate words from among the many possibilities and combining them according to the L2 word order (which may be quite different from the L1 word order). Furthermore, the user in oral communication may only process input sentences acoustically. No visual presentation of the sentence is available, which makes it very hard for her to observe and think about the sentence. PG needs to take into account these demanding constraints on the user in terms of accessible language. The third point of difference, time allocation, may have already been made obvious from the previous point. As the analyst accesses a visual, static, representation of the sentence in its complete form, he has plenty of time to analyze. The

32

Yosuke Yanase

Analyst Purpose

User

To describe and explain To speak the target language as completely as possible without committing global errors

Accessible language Stable, visual representation of a complete sentence

Passing, acoustic representation of a fragment of a sentence that has to be completed

Time allocation

Endless amount of time

Only a moment

Relationship with language use

After use, and about use

In use, and for use

Figure 2.1 Analyst and user perspectives on grammar

user, on the other hand, has only an acoustic, therefore passing, representation of the sentence that is still under construction. The user has only a moment, or even less than that, to think about the sentence. Whereas the analysts can think about many items of the sentence at the same time, the user can only think about one item at a time. These differences make the relationship with language use entirely different between the analyst and the user. The analyst describes and explains after the sentence was used (after use) and the grammatical analysis is at the meta-level of the language use (about use). The user, on the other hand, is in the middle of language use (in use) and she needs PG for the sentence that she wants to construct (for use). Figure 2.1 summarizes the differences. Grammar from the analyst’s perspective is built after language use to describe and explain about language use. It is most appropriately used when the language to be analyzed is given in its complete form on a written medium that enables a stable, long-time observation. On the other hand, grammar from the user’s perspective is referred to in and for language use, when the user is desperately struggling with an acoustic image of a fragment of the sentence under construction in a very short time. I argue that PG should take the user’s perspective rather than the analyst’s perspective. Applied linguists and language teachers should design a PG from scratch according to the user’s perspective. However, could there be such a PG? We suggest this is possible if we use ‘meaning compression’ instead of theoretical or mathematical compression. What is meant by ‘meaning compression’ will be explained in the next sections.

What is meaning? We believe that PG should adopt ‘meaning compression’ as meaning is the most useful medium for the humans. Before I define meaning compression, however, we should ask a very fundamental question: what is meaning? I will explain

Pedagogical grammar

33

meaning with reference to the theory of Niklas Luhmann, one of the most distinguished theoretical sociologists11 of the 20th century. Meaning is the way the humans process the complexity of the world. Complexity is a state in which there are a large number of elements and, therefore, a far larger number of combinations of them in a system that the prediction of a single necessary consequence is impossible. In a complex system, therefore, it is essential to make a contingent choice, that is, a choice that is neither necessary nor impossible. In order to deal with the complexity of the world for a better chance of survival, humans began to use meaning in consciousness and communication in the process of evolution. I should give specific examples, as the aforementioned definitions are very abstract. A teacher, for example, enters a classroom and she finds quite a large number of elements: desks, windows, posters, bags and smart phones, to name only a few. Any combination of these may produce its own unique effect. Students in the classroom further add to the number of combinations as they interact with other students and rearrange the elements in the classroom. The teacher cannot obviously see all the meanings of all the possible combinations at once, and therefore, simply enters the classroom just as usual, and finds no particular meaning for a while. However, suppose that she notices one thing. A boy in the middle, who is usually socially active, remains rather quiet that day. It is information to her as that particular demeanor of that particular boy makes a difference to her state (she feels rather upset now). That difference is different from any other potential differences in that the former makes a difference to her. Information, as Gregory Bateson (1972) famously defined, is ‘a difference that makes a difference’. Now, her consciousness is focused on the boy’s facial expression.12 The focal point of consciousness is the core of meaning, or as Luhmann (1990, 2012 calls it, actuality). For the teacher, the seemingly worrisome look of the boy constitutes her actual reality of the moment. She finds ‘meaning’ there. When meaning, or to be precise, actuality of meaning, emerges, consciousness is focused and therefore altered. The altered state of consciousness brings about different states of consciousness that otherwise would not have arisen. The focal point of consciousness, that is, actuality of meaning, changes the constellation of consciousness and makes images that were hidden more noticeable at the peripheries of consciousness. It is like picking up a certain part of a very large sheet of cloth, the rest of the sheet necessarily follows it accordingly, and the state of the entire sheet is altered. The images that become more noticeable (though in different degrees and manners) together with the emergence of actuality is potentiality (potentialität)13 of meaning. Potentiality of meaning is a large, indeed countless, number of images that accompany actuality of meaning. They constitute possible candidates for the next actuality of meaning. As for our teacher, as soon as the actuality of the boy’s concerning look is presented to her consciousness, her consciousness is extended.14 She may recall the fact that the boy had opened up to her about his trouble with his friends a couple of days ago. She may also recall a boy she taught long time ago who left

34

Yosuke Yanase

school as a result of the trouble with his friends. She may say to herself that she is worrying too much, but she may remember Tolstoy’s fable, whose message is that a fire must be put out when it is small. While the actuality of meaning focuses our consciousness, many other images emerge at the peripheries of consciousness as the potentiality of meaning. These images are countless or endless, just as we experience one image, another one keeps coming after another almost infinitely when we think about something for a long time. When such potentiality is integrated with actuality, we call that integration meaning. The structure of meaning is the same whether meaning is of non-linguistic events or of language. Meaning of language has a dual structure of a very prominent aspect and a less prominent aspect (denotation/connotation in semantics, literal meaning/speaker’s meaning in pragmatics or explicature/implicature in Relevance Theory). Meaning of language is understood as the integration of these two aspects. Luhmann’s terminology is in line with this terminology. His terminology is distinct, however, in that the notion of potentiality is much larger than that of connotation or speaker’s meaning. The connotation of ‘home’, for instance, may be ‘a place of warmth, comfort, and affection’ and the speaker’s meaning of the utterance ‘it’s cold’ may be ‘please shut the window’. However, in reality, when someone hears the word ‘home’ he, with his own personal history, may recall his terrible memories of abusive parents as potentiality of meaning. Potentiality covers a much larger area of our conscious life than connotation or speaker’s meaning does. Implicature as used in Relevance Theory is more like potentiality as it allows different degrees of implicatures from strong to weak (Sperber & Wilson, 1996). For example, for the utterance of ‘He wouldn’t buy an expensive car’, a strong implicature may be ‘He would not buy a Rolls Royce’ while a weak one may be ‘He would not be interested in a yacht, either’. However, as the argument of Relevance Theory is mostly about language use (although not entirely limited to language use), I would like to adopt the terminology of actuality and potentiality, as Luhmann’s theory of meaning is a general theory for both language use and non-linguistic events, Meaning makes it possible for humans to deal with the complexity of the world because of the structure that integrates the focused image (actuality) with a countless number of less prominent images (potentiality). Meaning makes the focus very clear and at the same time uncovers many other possibilities in different degrees and manners. Meaning is a representation of the complexity of the world as the perceiver experiences it. By using meaning in consciousness or communication, one can deal with a countless number of possibilities (potentiality) that associate with the focused image (actuality).15 In other words, meaning compresses complexity, and this is what meaning compression is. Meaning compression is different from mathematical compression. For example, (a + b)3 is a compressed expression which is unambiguously expandable to a3 + 3a2b + 3ab2 + b3. As the compression/expansion is a formal operation, it is (or must be) always constant, no matter who (person) or what (machine) does it. Mathematical compression only deals with necessary steps; it does not make a contingent choice.

Pedagogical grammar

35

On the other hand, meaning compression, while producing more or less the same actuality, may produce quite different images of potentiality among different persons. Images in potentiality are different in different minds that have been constructed through different experiences. After hearing an utterance, a listener may introduce another topic by his contingent choice as a response and the speaker may be pleasantly surprised. The contingent development of dialogue is what the listener did not expect (because it is not necessary) and what she can accept as a relevant topic (because it is not impossible). It is because of similar but different expansions of meaning compressions that people can create new ideas in dialogue that are unattainable in monologue. Or even in monologue, as a person comes up with a word from her disjointed thoughts, the word may release a lot of images from its potentiality that were hidden from her consciousness. One of the images in potentiality may develop into a new actuality for her. Indeed, this is how a speaker comes up with another word after uttering one word. One word comes after another, and thought begins to take shape. Furthermore, meaning compression/expansion is quite intuitive and comfortable for human beings, as meaning is the basic medium in their consciousness and communication. Meaning compression is, however, not welcomed by scientists and engineers who, by definition, must value necessity and constancy rather than relevance and diversity. That is why Chomsky and other science-oriented analysts choose mathematical compression for their scientific grammar. However, if we take the user’s perspective and consider the burdens of using consciously disembodied grammar in a real-life situation, we should prefer a PG that employs meaning compression. Thus, our answer to the question of designing PG anew is to construct a grammar from the user’s perspective that uses meaning compression. One such example of PG is MAP Grammar.

Meaning compression of MAP Grammar As is explained in Chapter 1, MAP Grammar presents the Order of Meanings (Who Æ Does (is) Æ Who (m)/What (How) Æ Where Æ When) as a sort of a road map or the ‘Golden Rule’ to construct a sentence in English. This is a meaning compression of practically all grammatical English sentences. It compresses grammatically possible English sentences as the syntagmatic (horizontal) sequence of units of meaning (Who Æ Does (is) Æ Who (m)/What (How) Æ Where Æ When). Generally speaking, the production of a sentence is explained by the paradigmatic (vertical) selections of an expression and the syntagmatic (horizontal) combination of the selected expressions (Jakobson, 1960). As the Order of Meanings more or less predetermines the syntagmatic (horizontal) combination, the user of MAP Grammar can comfortably concentrate on the paradigmatic (vertical) selection of an appropriate expression. She only has to select an expression for the unit of Who and then selects an expression for the next unit and so on. This is different from theoretical compression of traditional grammar or mathematical compression of scientific grammar, both of which require formal and

36

Yosuke Yanase

rigorous operations. The operations are only possible when given a sufficient amount of time and theoretical knowledge, which users, unlike trained analysts, do not have at their disposal. The Order of Meanings of MAP Grammar as a syntagmatic (horizontal) sequence is an intuitive representation, easy to memorize and utilize. Each unit of meaning stands independently of its theoretical relationship with other units. The user can create a sentence by focusing on ‘one thing at a time’; she makes a selection from the paradigmatic (vertical) list of possible words and phrases she can think of in each unit (for example, the choice of ‘I’ among other expressions for the unit of Who). She then continues the selection according to the syntagmatic (horizontal) sequence of Who Æ Does (is) Æ Who (m)/What (How) Æ Where Æ When. It is easy to select a word or phrase from the paradigmatic (vertical) list of possible expressions. Each unit of Who, Who (m)/What, Where, When is also a unit of meaning compression.16 From the unit of Who, the user can easily recall typical examples like ‘I’, ‘He’, ‘Kate’ or ‘The old man’. It is also a good trigger to recall personified expressions like ‘the storm’ as in ‘The storm devastated the area’ or ‘the news’ as in ‘The news shocked all the members’. Also, although the unit of Who takes a variety of grammatical categories (not only nouns or pronouns but also to-infinitives, gerunds or that-clauses, etc.), this diversity is of little practical difficulty for the user, as they all share the meaning that is compressed in the unit of Who: ‘the agent of an action’. In other words, meaning compression brings about typical examples as actuality and other possible examples as potentiality of meaning. When the user recalls the meaning of Who, the user can immediately narrow down the possible range of words and phrases for the first significant unit of a sentence and select one. After that, she only has to follow the Order of Meanings and continue selecting an expression for one unit after another. This is what a language user can do even on the back of a moving elephant, that is, in genuine communication.

Summary In this chapter, we have made a distinction between nonconsciously embodied grammar and consciously disembodied grammar, and argued that PG is one kind of consciously disembodied grammar. As consciously disembodied grammar cannot be nonconsciously embodied grammar, the former should focus on supporting our consciousness. PG is different from the other kinds of consciously disembodied grammar (traditional grammar and scientific grammar) in that it takes the user’s perspective while the latter two take the analyst’s perspective. PG must be referred to in language use (i.e., in a moment of ongoing communication) and be utilized for language use (i.e., for speaking without global errors). PG as such should adopt meaning compression, not theoretical compression or mathematical compression, for meaning is the way humans best deal with complexity. MAP Grammar, genuinely designed as PG, uses the Order of Meanings: Who Æ Does (is) Æ Who (m)/What (How) Æ Where Æ When. This is a

Pedagogical grammar

37

syntagmatic (horizontal) compression of meaning that produces practically all possible grammatical sentences. Each unit of the Order of Meanings is a paradigmatic (vertical) compression of meaning which enables an L2 user to select an appropriate word or phrase with ease. This selection is easy enough, as actuality of meaning extracts typical examples, while potentiality of meaning brings about other possible examples. The expansion from meaning compression may not be as rigorous as that from theoretical or mathematical compression, but we argue that is the price L2 learners are willing to pay for the ease and joy of communication. Which would they prefer: a thick grammar book that is precise and rigorous, or a convenient guidebook of grammar that is so easy to use? Ask the boy on the elephant.

Notes 1 ‘Nonconsciousness’ is a term used by neuroscientists. It refers to the realm of our mind where our consciousness cannot access. ‘Nonconsciousness’ is different from ‘unconsciousness’ in psychoanalysis in that the content of the former cannot appear in consciousness, while that of the latter can, as in the case of recalling a suppressed memory. 2 Apparently, if a L2 is acquired in early childhood, the grammar of the L2 is nonconsciously embodied and the user would have little consciously disembodied grammar of the L2. 3 The unit of A (adjunct or adverb) was later added to by some grammarians and the sentence patterns are now, according to them, seven (addition of SVA and SVOA) or eight (further addition of SVCA). 4 Adding the unit of A may further complicate the problem. For example, ‘in London’ in the sentence of ‘John lives in London’ (SVA) seem to satisfy a proper definition of the unit of C (one or more words, phrases or clauses governed by a verb that complete the meaning of the predicate. 5 Japan, where conventionalism and conformity are still appreciated, may be an exceptional place where the five sentence pattern is still in use. It is probably not by coincidence that this book originated in Japan to improve PG both theoretically and practically. 6 Please note that ‘language’ here has no article, and is not in a singular or plural form. 7 The schematic expression of the structure of XP is as follows.

8 We will dismiss detailed technical explanation of generative grammar as it is of little relevance to the argument of this chapter. 9 Word order is highly problematic for L2 learners whose L1 has a radically different one, for English relies on rigid word order for making sentences, more so than German, for example, in which inflections of articles and nouns allow flexible word order. 10 There may be other kinds of serious errors that L2 users are prone to. Some examples are sociolinguistically derogatory expressions like ‘homo’ or ‘Jap’ or functionally inappropriate use of ‘You’d better’ when politeness is required. These may be serious errors in some contexts, but we limit the issue in this book to global errors,

38

11

12 13 14 15

16

Yosuke Yanase by which we mean significant syntactic mistakes, particularly concerning the word order, that renders proper understanding of the intended message impossible. Some readers may wonder why a sociologist is interested in meaning. However, it is not surprising at all, if you consider that language and communication are social phenomena. It is rather surprising that our field of language teaching does not pay due attention to sociology that it deserves To be precise, this focal point of consciousness is at the level of core-consciousness. Luhmann occasionally uses the term ‘possibility’ (Möglichkeit) for ‘potentiality’ (Potentialität) interchangeably. Here, we see a function of extended consciousness. Compare the human language with the machine language. An expression of the machine language stands only for actuality (referent) and is always precise. However, with no potentiality, it is not ready for the next possible topics that the referent is associated with. The humans, on the other hand, can use one expression and its meaning deals with a countless number of possibilities in a potential mode. This is part of the reason why it is difficult for Artificial Intelligence that operates on the machine language to have an ordinary conversation with the humans. ‘Do (is)’ is not exactly meaning compression but grammatical compression because it requires the knowledge of two different general categories of English verbs: general verbs like ‘take’, ‘make’, or ‘play and be-verb like ‘am’, ‘are’ or ‘is’.

References Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Northvale: Jason Aronson Inc. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Damasio, A. (2010). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York: William Heinemann. Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. New York: Basic Books. Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language. (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Columbia University Press. Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of Society, Volume 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1996). Relevance: Communication and cognition. London: Blackwell Publishing.

3

Pedagogical grammar A theoretical background from the perspective of applied linguistics Yoichi Watari

This chapter examines the role of pedagogical grammar (PG) in foreign language teaching and learning from a theoretical perspective. PG is positioned at the interface of linguistic grammar and grammar teaching (Stern, 1992) and can be defined as “a system of meaningful structures and patterns that are governed by particular pragmatic constraints” (Larsen-Freeman, 2009, p. 521). In other words, PG must be organized for teaching and learning, and feature unique characteristics that are not necessarily shared with descriptive grammar or the actual teaching of grammatical aspects in the classroom. Learners construct models of the target grammar which they are being taught, and PG should serve as the conceptual tools “that a person uses to fashion his or her own understanding of something, to evaluate it and to solve tasks connected with it” (Engeström, 1994, p. 57). Therefore, how PG is represented and how it is organized will affect the quality of knowledge that learners could shape. From this viewpoint, the following six design criteria for PG as outlined by Swan (1994) may or may not carry equal weight: 1) truth, 2) demarcation, 3) clarity, 4) simplicity, 5) conceptual parsimony, and 6) relevance. When considering learner proficiency and obstacles to learner development, the question of which criterion should be prioritized has not been fully explored. Although many principles for effective grammar instruction have been proposed so far (see Batstone & Ellis, 2009), the effectiveness and appropriateness of approaches such as MAP Grammar should be examined through the lens of these principles. This chapter attempts such an examination.

Clearing the ground Conceptual levels As the concept of PG was originally proposed in the field of applied linguistics in the early 1970s, it would be important to clarify the definition of PG being discussed, as well as what kind of grammar is assumed in each discussion. According to Larsen-Freeman (2009), grammar may refer to a variety of terms from mental grammar, “an internal mental system that generates and interprets novel utterances”, to descriptive grammar, “a description of language behavior

40

Yoichi Watari

Level 5

Grammar teaching and learning in the language class Teaching grammar, learner’s grammar Grammatical syllabus

Level 4

Pedagogical grammar of L2

Level 3

Linguistic grammar: Scientific description of L2

Level 2

Linguistic research on L2

Level 1

Grammatical theory

Figure 3.1 Conceptual levels underlying grammar teaching (Adapted from Stern, 1992, p. 131)

by proficient users of a language” (p. 518). Among the plethora of definitions, PG in this chapter refers to the structures and rules compiled for instructional and assessment purposes. MAP Grammar, as introduced in this volume, should be developed with the earlier definition in mind, and this section will discuss where PG is located in discussions of grammar. Here, Stern’s (1992, p. 131) conceptual model of levels of grammar (see Figure 3.1) is borrowed in order to organize the relationships between grammatical theories in general linguistics, the descriptive grammar of English and PG. Here, Level 1 refers to theories about language in general. Studies at this level provide the fundamental knowledge base of language and grammar, which will postulate theoretically what it is, how it is acquired, how it is used, and so on. Level 2 denotes the linguistic studies on individual grammatical concepts of a particular language that establish the theoretical models proposed at Level 1. Level 3 is composed of comprehensive accounts of a grammar, based on the studies conducted at Level 2 (e.g., Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985). Stern (1992) considered PG to be situated at the Level 4 for teachers, as a ‘filter’ or ‘interface’ “which will help us to shift the various scientific descriptions and relate them to the practical situations in which the grammatical data are used” (pp. 131–132) – i.e., where descriptive grammars based on earlier

Pedagogical grammar

41

levels are shaped into practical grammars for teaching. Syllabi and materials for learners, or the actual practice in the classroom occupy Level 5. Therefore, the PG of a language can vary depending on a practitioner’s point of view, such as generative or cognitive perspectives, or a unique amalgam of these or other theories. Siding with a certain perspective and arguing the rights and wrongs of it are, however, beyond the scope of this chapter. For the present purpose, the PG discussed in this chapter will be such as occupies Level 4, defined tentatively as “a system of meaningful structures and patterns that are governed by particular pragmatic constraints” (Larsen-Freeman, 2009, p. 521), organized for learning. This definition implies it does not suffice for a PG to simply list examples and explanations of grammatical structures, but should necessarily cover more than the formal aspects of the language. For instance, even regarding the subject-verb agreement of the copula, be, it may not sufficient to simply explain that “first-person singular takes am, while plural takes are”, as these forms have different pragmatic meanings in either “reflecting my agency in the act of speaking” (see (1)a.), or signaling “my intention to make my audience feel more included in the event, perhaps to promote solidarity between us” (see (1)b), and thus a speaker must make a pragmatic choice about which to use (Larsen-Freeman, 2002, pp. 104–105). (1) I am → We are a. b.

I am speaking about the grammar of choice this afternoon. We are speaking about the grammar of choice this afternoon.

Places and objectives When we talk about the PG of a language, it is helpful to make clear which level (see Figure 3.1) we are discussing. For those who assume that a PG should deal only with specific grammatical explanations or materials for learners, considerations on Level 4 might appear to be redundant. In fact, in the previous research and practice of English language teaching, the descriptive or linguistic grammar at Level 2 or 3 has been often adopted directly as teaching content. It is critically important for the research of PG to determine a level for filtering the results of linguistic (phonological, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic) analysis from the viewpoint of teaching, which has its own systematic structures. Discussion of a PG at Level 4 without any consideration of actual syllabi and materials has the potential to become highly dysfunctional. For the practice of teaching, it is essential to take Level 5 into an account. Viewed from a different perspective, however, it might be said that the process of refining information from Level 3 is essential to the development of a PG. Taking both of these perspectives into account, we believe it is important to consider PG across all three of these levels, in other words, turning our attention to the processes that each arrow in Figure 3.1 represents. We must also consider the purpose of a PG, as the question of why learners are learning grammar is not always so obvious to themselves and teachers. An

42

Yoichi Watari

objective occasionally posited is ‘to develop (linguistic) communicative competence in the target language’, although there is no clear consensus among researchers and practitioners that the teaching of grammar can achieve this. Other competing objectives such as ‘to compare the target grammar with learners’ L1 grammar for metalinguistic considerations’ or ‘to improve analytical and logical thinking’ are also relatively common, although no one knows for sure whether teaching grammar will lead to such outcomes or not. Space precludes an exhaustive discussion of the pros and cons of each objective, rather it should simply be mentioned that some propose that a PG should be simple enough to fulfill an immediate purpose, while others take it as a broader, all-encompassing and central element in their teaching procedures.

Target learners and stages A PG should guide the target learners through a language. At the simplest level, it should assist learners in overcoming so-called global errors, where an utterance hardly makes sense because of the ungrammaticality, while preparing learners to later overcome ‘local errors’, where an utterance makes sense to some extent despite some incorrect grammar uses (Tajino, 2011). During the processes of actual teaching and learning, however, one will of course encounter these two errors at the same time, to varying degrees with varying levels of learners. As a matter of course, each grammatical concept will require a different treatment, and must be addressed by teachers in a manner relevant to their learners. A PG, however, should act as a compass to help learners deepen their linguistic knowledge, allowing learners and teachers to shuttle between abstractness and concreteness, rather than getting stuck in some halfway space in between them. So far, we have cleared the ground to discuss PG, making the assumptions explicit. Research on linguistic grammar (i.e., stages 1, 2, and 3) is not necessary here, as its role is to describe grammatical systems fully. Research on PG must rather address the processes between Level 3 to Level 4, and Level 4 to Level 5. These processes are discussed in the following sections.

How to construct PG The quality of knowledge of PG Theoretical considerations of the development of a PG (i.e., how we describe, organize, and present language for pedagogy, or the process between Level 3 and 4 in Figure 3.1), have been insufficient in the field of English language teaching research. There is much knowledge accumulated through practice, distilled in different learning environments, that have not yet been reflected in PG theory. Such practical knowledge is necessary for the development of grammar for teaching. Engeström (1994) categorized the quality of knowledge into two dimensions: 1) how it is represented and 2) how it is organized. He criticized the prevailing view of content for learning as “disparate facts stored away in memory like

Pedagogical grammar

43

things in boxes on shelves”, suggesting that rather “in reality, people construct models of the world while learning” (p. 24). Knowledge may then be represented (a) physically or sensory-motorially, (b) visually or pictorially, and (c) symbolically or linguistically, while organized as (d) facts, (e) definitions and classifications, (f) procedural descriptions, and (g) systems models. Theoretically, we thus have (3 × 4 =) 12 different patterns of knowledge representation and organization. According to Engeström, “Good learning requires flexibility and movement of knowledge in both dimensions”, representation and organization, and “their elastic transformation in situations of disturbance requires that the principles behind the movements be understood and managed conceptually” (p. 26). These general findings of learning sciences suggest that knowledge of grammar will not increase only linearly, but necessarily involve qualitative conceptual changes non-linearly. Thus, simply filling our learners’ heads with more grammatical rules information is likely not the correct approach. As an example, Kanno (1980) pointed out that the third-person singular form -s exists not distinctively in isolation, in the VP systems of person/number agreement, tense, aspect, mood, and voice in English. While the rules may be isolated for explanation, learning does not occur so linearly, and thus as learners progress, this seeming singular concept will be taught again and relearnt newly in each context. A PG must be developed with this understanding of acquisition of knowledge in mind, with an understanding of not only how knowledge is enriched but also how it is conceptually restructured (Imai & Nojima, 2003).

PG as orientation basis It is only natural that learners will face difficulties when learning grammar. In English, for example, particularly for learners with a background language that lacks definite/indefinite articles, when to use the indefinite article a or the definite article the, or understanding why each are used in certain contexts can be problematic. What learners need to overcome such difficulties is an orientation basis. Engeström (1994) defines an orientation basis as “the model that a person uses to fashion his or her own understanding of something, to evaluate it and to solve tasks connected with it” (p. 57). An orientation basis may operate in the following five ways (Engeström, 1994). Each type of orientation basis corresponds to the differences of level of abstraction in elaborating explanations and developing learners’ understanding. Borrowing Engeström (1994)’s definitions of these five types of orientation bases, and using indefinite/definite articles as an example, here we will consider how a PG might can become an orientation basis for learning and using English. a. b. c. d. e.

an exemplar an advance organizer algorithms and rules a system model a ‘germ cell’ model

44

Yoichi Watari

An exemplar is “a prototype representing a class or category of objects or phenomena . . . is commonly represented in the form of a picture, mental image . . . a metaphor or a story” (Engeström, 1994, p. 62). Using articles as an example, Onishi and McVay (2008) described them as follows, as a potential exemplar: A noun phrase without any articles or determiners . . . is “unbounded”, . . . and can be used for talking about things in general . . . the definite article the suggests that in some way the subject/object is “determinable as one”. In contrast with the, the indefinite article a is “undeterminable as one”. (pp. 91–92) Schematic images, such as Figure 3.2, may also be exemplars (adapted from Sato & Tanaka, 2009). An exemplar does not include complete detailed explanations. Taking the article example, the first exemplar does not describe what makes a thing ‘determinable (or undeterminable) as one’, whereas the images in Figure 3.2 does not provide any information on what key feature makes the moon take the determiner the. Advance organizers often take the form of lists or charts, and function by aiding the learner to organize their understanding of a phenomenon before it is acquired as new knowledge. The advance organizer “divides the object or phenomenon in parts and organizes those parts in a hierarchical order” (Engeström, 1994, p. 63). An example of an advance organizer is shown in Table 3.1. Algorithms and rules provide “precise instructions for the performance of a task or procedure” and function to “single out the important successive steps

a

the

the moon

Figure 3.2 Images as exemplars Table 3.1 Advanced organizer for articles

NP

Finiteness

Form

Number

Indefinite

ϕ a(n) some ϕ the

Singular/Plural Singular Singular/Plural Proper name Singular/Plural

Definite

Pedagogical grammar

45

When discussing a person or thing

A concrete, specific person or thing (or group of such)

The person or thing’s name

The person or thing’s “type” or “kind”

Knowledge of person/thing under discussion is shared/ not shared by the listener, or specified/unspecified by context not shared

unspecified

amongst those

shared

specified

no article

all

the

amongst those a few one

some

a(n)

Figure 3.3 An algorithmic flowchart

of a performance . . . often represented in form of flow charts or checklists” (Engeström, 1994, p. 63). An example is shown in Figure 3.3. Algorithms and rules do not explain, however, why a procedure is exactly as presented. Thus they do not provide learners with the tools to adapt to exceptions. A system model “describes the object as a system, exposing its internal relations and dynamics [which] enables the student to diagnose various states and problems of the system as well as to select and construct appropriate procedures for them” (Engeström, 1994, p. 64). The flow chart in Figure 3.3 contains an internal relation of the English article system, but does not qualify as a system model, for it is incomplete insofar as it does not address the countability of nouns and the association with NP structures. A ‘germ cell’ is an abstract model describes the underlying ‘origin of the phenomenon’ (Engeström, 1994, p. 64), in which concrete examples such as the moon are unnecessary. An example of a ‘germ cell’ model for the description of the English article system is provided in Table 3.2 (adapted from Machida, 2000). This ‘germ cell’ model describes the English article system based on linguistic research findings, as a system of five articles (zero, some, a, the, null) consisting of four different features: locatability (whether the whereabouts of the referent of the NP can be found in a shared class between the speaker and the hearer), inclusiveness (whether the reference is made inclusively), limited extensivity (whether the range of the reference has a quantitative limitation), and count (count or mass). A ‘germ cell’ is characterized by its very abstractness, and is not the one given to learners as such. They may, however, be used to identify the learners’ knowledge states prior to the lesson (see, for example, Machida, 2000).

46

Yoichi Watari

Table 3.2 ‘Germ cell’ model for articles

zero some a the null

Locatable

Inclusive

Limited extensivity

Count

− ± ± + +

± ± ± + +

− + + + −

± ± + ± +

It should be noted that “the crucial task of good instruction is to facilitate and stimulate the formation and active use of the different types of orientation bases and their combinations, and flexible movement between them” (Engeström, 1994, p. 66). This is not to say, of course, that activating just one type of orientation base in a particular lesson should be avoided. Rather, practitioners (teachers, users, and designers of PG) should be attempting in a broader sense to activate several types, eventually guiding learners to develop their own system or ‘germ cell’ models.

Linguistic criteria for a PG Osanai (1985) claimed that attention needs to be given to two distinct aspects when a PG is being developed. The first is the linguistic aspect, or what grammatical content should be provided to the learners to serve as a foundation for their linguistic performance. The second is the pedagogical aspect, which refers to how this selected grammatical content may be developed into materials and aids for learning. Referring back to Stern’s (1992) levels in Figure 3.1, the linguistic aspect corresponds to the process between Level 3 and 4, while the pedagogical aspect is equivalent to the process from Level 4 to Level 5. As for the linguistic aspect, Swan (1994) listed six design criteria for rules of a PG (pp. 45–53). a. b. c. d. e. f.

Truth: Rules should be true. Demarcation: A pedagogic rule should show clearly what are the limits on the use of a given form. Clarity: Rules should be clear. Simplicity: A pedagogic rule should be simple. Conceptual parsimony: An explanation must make use of the conceptual framework available to the learner. Relevance: A rule should address the question (and only the question) that the student’s English is ‘asking’.

While at face value, these criteria seem reasonable, fulfilling every criteria in a PG may not always be possible, nor necessary. The very first rule, “Truth: Rules

Pedagogical grammar

47

should be true” can lead to several rules for the same linguistic item that are contextually dependent. To take comparative expressions (i.e., more than I/me) as an example, a number of textbooks and guidebooks refer to the cases of pronouns after than/as. In such constructions, the nominative case of the pronoun often appears in older usage or formal writing styles, while the objective case accounts for most of the uses in speech. Even English linguistics research, however, has not reached a firm conclusion on whether the constituents following than/as in this case should be considered as a clause or direct complement (see Huddleston & Pullum, 2002). In the face of such a linguistic fact, it would be difficult to produce a rule for pedagogy that will fulfill both criteria (a) truth, and (b) demarcation. Usage may, of course, be addressed individually when such potentially ambiguous examples arise. Take for example, the following sentence and its potential meanings: Mary loves the dog more than I/me. Meaning A: Mary loves the dog more than I do. Meaning B: Mary love the dog more than she does me. While it would be difficult to give a rule that sufficiently fulfills all of Swan’s criteria with relevance to the original sentence, this may be addressed with a visual application of MAP Grammar, such as in Figure 3.4. In summary, while it would be ideal for rules in a PG to fulfill all the aforementioned criteria, the problem of selecting which information to teach, and how this is to be represented, may in reality be more nuanced. A PG should be thus developed in such a manner as to be malleable, in order to address such concerns as they arise for learners.

who Mary

does/is LOVEs

MORE

who Mary

does/is LOVEs

who

what/whom the dog

I

do

what/whom (the dog)

THAN

who

what/whom the dog

MORE

does/is

(she)

THAN

Figure 3.4 A visual example of MAP Grammar

does/is (does)

what/whom me

48

Yoichi Watari

Requirements for PG to fulfill as materials and lesson plans The process of teaching and learning While some researchers place no value on teaching of grammar in SLA, a substantial number of studies have supported that it has some effect on learning (e.g., Ellis, 2002). What must be considered, is whether grammatical knowledge is provided explicitly or implicitly. For the development of a PG, this discussion inevitably leans towards explicit teaching. A key issue that designers of PG should be aware of, is that regards of how such knowledge is presented, learning could take place both explicitly and implicitly. In other words, learners may extract rules, such as regular and irregular forms of verbs, from a given input, or memorize the description of the rules consciously, while in some cases they might be able to use it without any awareness. What is really important is the relationship and optimal balance between these two ways of teaching, and one of the main concern in SLA is how explicit teaching and learning could have an influence on implicit learning (Ellis, 2011). A PG put into practice should therefore be able to adapt into materials and tasks that address both types of learning. Deductive and inductive reasoning processes can be assumed both for explicit and implicit learning (DeKeyser, 2003, pp. 313–315). Deductive reasoning is the process of applying general rules to specific cases in a top-down fashion, while inductive reasoning generalizes or extrapolates from specific cases to general rules as a bottom-up process. In reality, learners’ thoughts come and go in both directions ceaselessly, and it is impossible to discuss what happens in actual teaching solely on the basis of this dichotomy. Nevertheless, it would be meaningful in principle to make a distinction between these, because explicit grammar teaching and learning are often treated like the same thing as giving explanations in a top-down fashion and applying it. A well-designed PG, however, should be able to provide learners with opportunities to apply both types of reasoning in their learning.

Assessing PG in practice As mentioned earlier, designers of a PG should consider the research on the teaching content of PG (Level 4) and how to assess the material development and actual teaching (Level 5) in tandem. Thornbury (1999, p. 28) listed the following basic principles as the criterion for evaluating “grammar presentation and practice activities”. 1. 2.

How efficient they are (the E-factor). How appropriate they are (the A-factor). The efficiency of an activity is gauged by determining:

(a) Its economy − How time-efficient is it? (b) Its ease − How easy is it to set up? (c) Its efficacy − Is it consistent with good learning principles?

Pedagogical grammar

49

The appropriacy of an activity takes into account: (d) learners’ needs and interests (e) learners’ attitudes and expectations A PG should not be organized purely for the satisfaction of grammar enthusiasts or theorists. As such, the E-factor as described by Thornbury is a critical concern to the development of a PG, and in assessments of its quality. At the same time, Thornbury’s (1999) criteria have several issues to be clarified on to whom and for what ‘its economy’ is, what does it mean by ‘time-efficient’, whereas the A-factor may be a greater concern to a practitioner implementing PG, rather than the designers. The research and practice of a PG should result in the efficient preparing for classes or teaching, but should not be conducted in pursuit of its economy itself.

PG: Theory to practice In this chapter, we have considered the nature of PG and presented some of the concerns that should be addressed in the design of a PG through to its implementation in the classroom. The ultimate goals of teaching through a PG are to provide learners with the foundation necessary to deepen linguistic, cultural, and social knowledge of the target language. At the core, a PG is developed to aid understanding of the characteristics of form, meaning, and use the grammatical concepts carry, and assist learners in the discovering or making of models which enable learners to apply such understanding in their language use (for a more in depth discussion, see Watari, 2012). Some of the other chapters in this volume explore how MAP Grammar may address some of the concerns raised here. For discussions of the selection and representation of linguistic knowledge (i.e., the process between Level 3 and Level 4), readers are directed back to Chapter 1, in which the outline for MAP Grammar is presented. For details of the development of teaching materials from a theoretical discussion of PG (i.e., the process between Level 4 and Level 5), readers are directed to Part 2, in which curricula, materials development, and targeted instruction are covered. Finally, for examples of MAP Grammar as a PG in practice (Level 5), Part 3 introduces lesson plans that practicing teachers may be able to adapt for use in their own classrooms.

References Batstone, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). Principled grammar teaching. System, 37(2), 194– 204. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.09.006 DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & D. M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). London: Wiley-Blackwell. Ellis, N. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 35–48). Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.

50

Yoichi Watari

Ellis, R. (2002). Place of grammar instruction in L2 curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17–34). New York: Routledge. Engeström, Y. (1994). Training for change: New approach to instruction and learning in working life. Geneva: International Labour Office. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (Eds.). (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Imai, M., & Nojima, H. (2003). Hito ga manabu toiukoto [About the learning people do]. Tokyo: Hokuju Shuppan. Kanno, F. (1980). “Shiteki na bunpo kyozai” wa chittomo suteki dewanai [“A poetic material for teaching grammar” is not wonderful at all]. Kyoiku [Education], 385, 104–110. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The grammar of choice. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 103–118). New York: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Teaching and testing grammar. In C. Doughty & D. M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 518–542). London: Wiley-Blackwell. Machida, K. (2000). Eigoka karikyuramu ni okeru bunpo kyoiku no ichi to naiyo: Gengoteki komyunikesyon noryoku no ikusei wo mezashite [The content of and place for grammar teaching within the English curriculum for Japanese secondary schools: An attempt to develop communicative language ability]. Karikyuramu Kenkyu [The Japanese Journal of Curriculum Studies], 9, 103–120. Onishi, H., & McVay, P. (2008). Hato de kanjiru eigojuku: eigo no gogensoku hen [The academy of English grammar feeling with heart: 5 principles of English series]. Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai. Osanai, T. (1985). Kyoiku bunpo no naiyo to hoho [The content and method of pedagogical grammar]. In Y. Kurokawa, T. Osanai, & I. Hayakawa (Eds.), Eibunpo no atrashi kangaekata manabikata [A new way of considering and learning English grammar] (pp. 210–263). Tokyo: Sanyusha Shuppan. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Sato, Y., & Tanaka, S. (2009). Rekishikaru gurama eno shotai [An introduction to lexical grammar]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swan, M. (1994). Design criteria for pedagogic language rules. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 45–55). New York: Prentice Hall. Tajino, A. (2011). Imijun eisakubun no susume [A practical guide of English writing with Imijun approach]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education. Watari, Y. (2012). Gakushu eibunpo wo kangaeru saino ronten wo seiri suru [Summarizing issues to ponder pedagogical English grammar]. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Gakushu eibunpo wo minaoshitai [Reexamining pedagogical English grammar] (pp. 66–86). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

4

MAP Grammar A cognitive grammar perspective Kazumi Taniguchi

Outline of cognitive grammar To begin with, we would like to offer an introduction of cognitive linguistics, especially cognitive grammar (henceforth CG) advocated by Langacker (1987, 1991a). CG radically differs from Chomskyan generative grammar in its fundamental assumption regarding the nature of grammar and language. CG does not presuppose autonomous components of linguistic competence, especially syntax; rather, it regards linguistic capacities as possible only with interactions of various cognitive functions such as perception, recognition, and abstraction. Enumerated next are three significant theses that CG posits as its theoretical foundation: 1) a symbolic view of grammar, 2) cognitive semantics and 3) categorization.

Symbolic view of grammar CG fundamentally adopts a Saussurean symbolic view of language. What is notable of CG is that, as with lexical items, grammatical constructions are symbolic in that they are regarded as pairings of forms and meanings, which CG refers to as ‘symbolic units’. For example, the double-object construction, instantiated as ‘John sent Mary a dictionary’, is a symbolic unit whose abstract formal template [S V O1 O2] is associated with the constructional meaning that the IO referent (Mary) receives the direct object referent (a dictionary). CG rejects the derivational, hierarchical model of generative grammar, and it deals only with overt ‘surface’ structures. While generative grammar insists that syntactic transformation does not alter the semantics of the underlying structure, CG regards any formal differences as inevitably accompanying semantic change regardless of their seeming syntactic relatedness. In the case of the double-object construction mentioned earlier, ‘John sent Mary a dictionary’ and its paraphrase using the PP, ‘John sent a dictionary to Mary’, do not convey exactly the same meaning though both of the sentences describe situations that are objectively identical. The semantic differences of the two can be found in their focus; the former, double-object variant strongly implies Mary’s reception of the dictionary, while the PP variant focuses on the movement of the dictionary from John to Mary, who does not necessarily receive the transferred object. This results

52

Kazumi Taniguchi

in the difference of cancelability of reception on the part of the IO referent, as shown next: (1) a. b.

John sent a dictionary to Mary, but she didn’t receive it. ??John sent Mary a dictionary, but she didn’t receive it.

Thus, CG considers grammar and semantics to be essentially inseparable, given the subjective view of semantics observed in what follows.

Cognitive semantics CG takes a view on semantics that is in stark contrast to the traditional objective semantics which reduces linguistic meanings to the truth conditions of denoted propositions. Instead, CG equates meaning with conceptualization; this is called ‘subjective’ semantics because meanings of linguistic expressions largely reside in how the speaker construes the external world through various dimensions of imagery such as figure/ground organization, mental scanning, framing and so on. Also, CG agrees on the view of ‘conceptual metaphor’ proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999), taking metaphors and other tropes as important conceptual factors driving semantic extensions of everyday language.

Categorization CG mainly adopts a psychologically plausible model of prototype categories (Rosch, 1978) which assumes that members of a given category vary with respect to their typicality or centrality to that category. As an often-quoted example, prototypical instances of the category ‘bird’ are those capable of flying, such as sparrows and robins. Penguins and ostriches, on the other hand, are quite marginal in that they lack the ability of flight. Thus, the internal structure of a category is radial, allowing for extensions (or deviations) from the central, prototypical instances. In addition to the prototype category observed earlier, CG employs the notion of ‘schema’ which captures commonalities extracted from the members of the category. In the case of the category of ‘bird’, the schema of this category is what all the members share: having beaks and wings, being covered with feathers, and so on. CG conventionally represents the relationships among the prototype, extension and schema as shown in Figure 4.1. Note that the schema is flexible enough to allow further modifications as a result of accommodating extensions from the schema, as indicated in the upper part of Figure 4.1. This suggests that the boundary of a category is inherently fuzzy and variable in nature. Such a view on categorization is also applicable to grammatical aspects of languages. In fact, the notions such as subject/object, nouns/verbs can be regarded as grammatical categories and thus it is no surprise if they are established in the same way as natural categories like ‘bird’. CG presumes that the category ‘noun’, for example, can be defined in conceptual terms as follows: the prototype of

MAP Grammar

53

(‘schema’)

(elaboration) ‘novel instance’

schema (extraction) prototype

novel instance extension

Figure 4.1 Relationships between prototype, extension and schema

nouns is a concrete physical object (denoted by a count noun), with materials and abstract entities being marginal, and the schema is whatever can be interpreted broadly as ‘thing’. Grammatical constructions are also seen as forming prototype categories. In the case of the double-object construction mentioned earlier, its prototype is an instance with frequently used verbs, such as ‘gimme juice’. The schema of the construction can be represented as [S V O1 O2] associated with the abstract meaning of reception of an object (O2), extracted from an array of instances of this construction like ‘I sent Mary a dictionary’, ‘I faxed him the document’, ‘She taught me English’ and so forth.1

Clausal structure and event construal As MAP Grammar directly concerns the word order constituting a sentence, we would like to elucidate CG’s treatment of clausal structure and its cognitive motivations in what follows. CG defines grammatical notions in conceptual terms of how we construe an event. In particular, syntactic arguments such as ‘subject’ and ‘object’ are actually motivated by the cognitive salience we impose on the conceived event. As Talmy (1978) first suggested, a clausal subject is needed to be consistent with ‘figure’ – i.e., the focal prominence of the scene. In the case of (2), although the proximal spatial relation of the two entities [X is near Y] logically entails [Y is near X], the actual linguistic usage does not allow such an alternation. Comparing ‘the bike’ and ‘the house’, one finds that an extended object like the house is harder to perceive as ‘figure’ than the bike. (2) a. b.

The bike is near the house. ??The house is near the bike.

This contrast clearly shows that perceptual, cognitive factors play an important role in the assignment of grammatical status.

54

Kazumi Taniguchi (agent)

(patient)

transmission of energy

change of location/state

Figure 4.2 Action chain

CG elaborates upon Talmy’s suggestion, and in order to represent the correlation between the clausal structure and event construal, CG employs a cognitive event model called an action chain, depicted in Figure 4.2. In this model, circles indicate the participants of the events, which are represented by nominals. Arrows stand for relations held between participants: a double arrow for transmission of energy (force), and a single arrow for change of location or state. What Figure 4.2 illustrates is a typical transitive event such as John broke the glass, where an agent participant exerts force on the patient participant whose physical state changes as a result of receiving energy. In a canonical construal, the agent participant is the most likely to be ‘figure’ of the event, as indicated by a bold line, according to the general tendency that humans are more salient than inanimate objects. Furthermore, since it is natural for us to mentally scan the denoted event according to the direction of energy flow, the ‘head’ participant of the action chain is most likely to be the focus of attention in the first place. Therefore, as a default case, the agent participant is selected as the subject of the transitive clause, with the patient participant being a ‘secondary figure’ is assigned the status of direct object. Furthermore, we can impose various kinds of construal on the same event. Consider the following expressions, (3a)–(3d) corresponding to Figure 4.3 (a)– (d), respectively: (3) a. b. c. d.

John broke the glass with the hammer. The hammer broke the glass. The glass broke. The glass was broken (by John).

(3a) is an extended version of a typical transitive event by adding the instrument participant mediating the energy flow from the agent to the patient, as sketched in Figure 4.3(a). Based on (3a), it is possible to limit the scope, deliberately cutting off the agent participant. It is then plausible to assign the instrument participant subject status as in (3b), since it is the head of the profiled portion of the action chain. The same event can be described as intransitive as in (3c), excluding the agent and instrument participants from the scope; in this case, the patient participant is the only candidate for focus of attention, and automatically selected as clausal subject. The passive sentence in (3d) is similar to (3c) in that the patient participant is perceived as the ‘figure’ of the scene. However, the

MAP Grammar (agent)

(instrument)

55

(patient)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4.3 Various kinds of construal

(experiencer)

perceptual contact

Figure 4.4 Perceptual event

agent participant in (3d) remains within the scope in a less salient manner. This is reflected in the possibility of explicating the agent participant in a by-phrase (note that the agent could not be represented by any means in the case of intransitive (3c)). Thus, the passive is regarded as a grammatical device to signal a marked construal on the transitive event such that the patient participant is perceived as more salient than the agent participant for certain reasons.2 Of course, such energetic interactions of the agent and the patient are present only in the prototypical transitive events. Nevertheless, CG assumes that the analogue of the action chain can be employed to describe non-typical transitive events. In the perceptual event described in (4a), the mental contact of the experiencer participant onto the object of perception can be represented by a dashed arrow as in Figure 4.4, and the experiencer lying in the head of the interaction is in accordance with the clausal subject. The stative, symmetrical event in (4b) does actually involve asymmetry between the two participants with respect to cognitive salience; the subject Mary, presumably the topic of the discourse, is the most salient whereas the object Lady Gaga functions as standard of comparison. Therefore, it sounds odd if we say ‘Lady Gaga resembles Mary’ instead of (4b); it would require a special context where Mary could be the standard of evaluating Lady Gaga.

56

Kazumi Taniguchi

prototype

action-chain position

schema

subject

agent participant

head

primary figure: the most salient element

object

patient participant

tail

secondary figure: salient element next to the primary figure

Figure 4.5 Characterization of subject and object

setting

Figure 4.6 Action chain and setting

(4) a. b.

I smelled the flower. Mary resembles Lady Gaga.

As shown by the examples observed so far, the choice of clausal subject and object can be reduced to a matter of event construal. Figure 4.5 summarizes the characterization of subject and object in CG. Regarding so-called ‘adjuncts’ such as PPs and adverbs, they are regarded as providing ‘settings’ of the event. Consider the following examples: (5) a. b.

John broke the glass in the kitchen. John broke the glass yesterday.

(5a) and (5b) involve a spatial setting and a temporal setting, respectively. Both encompass the action chain composed of the participants and their relations, as sketched in Figure 4.6. Since the settings are more likely to be perceived as ‘background’ in nature, it is harder in general to focus on the setting elements than on event participants.3 Thus, CG’s characterization predicts strong correlations of grammatical obligatoriness and cognitive salience: salient elements of an event are assigned obligatory grammatical status such as subject, and vice versa.

Ordering of meaning in terms of ‘natural path’ Having introduced the fundamental views of CG in some detail, we would like to examine MAP Grammar in cognitive-theoretical terms. Perhaps the reader has already noticed considerable parallelism between MAP Grammar and CG, each

MAP Grammar

WHO

DOES

John

broke

WHOM/WHAT the glass

WHERE

WHEN

in the kitchen

yesterday

57

Figure 4.7 MAP Grammar structure and the action chain

WHEN

WHERE

Kinou daidokoro-de (yesterday kitchen-LOC

WHO jon-ga John-NOM

WHOM/WHAT gurasu-o glass-ACC

DOES wat-ta. break-PST)

Figure 4.8 MAP Grammar structure and Japanese word order

assuming that the word order can be motivated on the basis of meaning. CG’s theoretical basis, which is shared by MAP Grammar, brings semantic factors to the forefront in considering grammatical issues. Tajino’s (Chapter 1, this volume) observation that “this approach interprets meaning/sense units in the clause/sentence (agent, action, etc.) or participant, process, and circumstance” is fully compatible with CG’s view of events, typically represented by the action chain. Let us compare the MAP Grammar structure and the alignment of the action chain (Figure 4.7). As shown earlier, the (SVO) word order in English exactly coincides with the linear ordering of elements of the event, naturally following the directionality of the flow of energy. After encoding the salient action-chain elements, English brings settings (denoted by adjuncts) into the sentence. As for the ordering of [WHERE → WHEN], this can also be explained by the directionality of semantic extension via spatial metaphor; the notion of time is actually understood in terms of space.4 It is thus natural to put the spatial phrase earlier than the temporal phrase. Then, as a comparison, let us consider the (SVO) word order of Japanese5 by applying MAP Grammar structure likewise (Figure 4.8). Although Japanese is an agglutinative language that enables word scrambling to a considerable extent, the canonical ordering corresponding to the English counterpart in Figure 4.7 is intuitively what is shown in Figure 4.8. With respect to the part of (subject-object-verb [SOV]), the Japanese ordering accords with relative salience: first the primary ‘figure’, next the secondary ‘figure’ and finally the relation between the two. What is notable here is that, in Japanese, the adjunct phrases are generally put in the head of the sentence. Such a difference

58

Kazumi Taniguchi

English

alignment of arguments

adjuncts

the directionality of flow of an event [SVO]

background: less salient [end of the sentence]

Japanese relative salience: from participants to relation [SOV]

background: more focused [head of the sentence]

Figure 4.9 Comparison of English and Japanese

between English and Japanese reminds us of Nisbett’s (2003) assertion that Japanese people are much more likely than American people to pay attention to background of the observed scene, though they equally notice focal objects.6 If so, it is possible to assume that such cultural differences in perception and recognition are also seen in the alignment of adjuncts in English and Japanese. Having compared the basic word order in English and Japanese, we find these two languages in stark contrast with each other. However, either way of ordering is cognitively plausible, summarized as follows (Figure 4.9). Both fashions of word order exhibit what Langacker (2000, p. 36) calls a ‘natural path’ – i.e., a cognitively natural ordering, and therefore they are mutually understandable even if one of them is not conventional in the other system. Note that, according to Dryer (2013), nearly 90% of the world’s languages with dominant word order are classified either as SOV or SVO. Such skewed distribution might have been brought out because these two types of word order reflect our natural ways of construing an event.7

Further application of MAP Grammar Now we would like to look into possibilities of further application of MAP Grammar from the viewpoint of CG. For one thing, MAP Grammar can be reinforced by some insights of comparative linguistic studies. As for English/Japanese contrast, an array of studies has attempted to characterize it in an efficient way. What is specifically relevant to the current issue among them is Ikegami’s (1981) characterization that English is a DO-language while Japanese is a BECOMElanguage. Consider the following expressions: (6) a. b. c.

I’m going to quit my job next week. Raishuu shigoto-o yame-masu. next-week job-ACC quit-AUX Raishuu shigoto-o yameru koto-ni nari-mashi-ta. next-week job-ACC quit affair-LOC become-AUX-PST

The English expression in (6a) can be paraphrased in Japanese either as (6b) or (6c). While (6b) is a literal translation of (6a), (6c) corresponds roughly to something like

MAP Grammar

59

“It came to a state of affairs such that I will quit my job next week”. This lengthy, roundabout expression sounds politer, describing as if the speaker’s quitting the job occurred as a matter of course, rather than by her will (even though the speaker herself decided to do so). As a negative politeness strategy that avoids imposing on the listener (Brown & Levinson, 1978), the Japanese language might withdraw the actor’s intention and, as a result, tends to employ BECOME-expressions instead of DO-expressions in (6a)–(6b). This goes as far as Japanese preference to stative expressions to active, dynamic expressions such as the following: (7) a. b.

We have an English class today. Kyou-wa Eigo-no jugyou-ga aru. today-TOP English-GEN class-NOM exist

Japanese learners of English are apt to make literal translation of (7b) such that ‘There is an English class today’, which involves no grammatical errors but sounds somewhat unnatural. These instances show that Japanese learners are required to shift their mode of linguistic encoding from BECOME-language to DO-language, and in this regard MAP Grammar is efficient due to its emphasis on the beginning column of the structure labeled WHO; enough experiences of beginning the sentence by the actor subject will facilitate Japanese learners to switch their mode to DO-language. In fact, the DO-language characteristics of English are reflected in the representation of the notion of causation, which heavily relies on the force-dynamic concept as shown in the example that follows (Figure 4.10): (8) John made his mother angry. The subject John in (8) is the causer who brings out the psychological change of his mother, exerting non-physical, metaphorical kind of energy.8 Of course, the causer participant can be inanimate: (9) The news made me happy. The subject the news is the cause of psychological change of a human participant, and such mental influence can be interpreted metaphorically as force dynamics.

(causer)

cause

Figure 4.10 Causer, cause and change of state

change of state

60

Kazumi Taniguchi

MAP Grammar structure is already equipped with devices to deal with this kind of causation, since it notes that the column of WHO in the subject position can be metaphorically replaced by WHAT, just as in the case of (9). Finally, we would like to consider MAP Grammar’s potential for extension to teaching and learning of the L2 in general. As an attempt, let us take up the grammar of Spanish, one of the world’s most prominent languages by number of speakers. Its word order is basically (SVO) as shown in (10a). However, if the direct and indirect objects are pronouns, they are put in front of the verb, yielding the word order of (SOV) as in (10b). (10)a. b.

Juan regaló el libro a su madre. Juan gift-PST-3SG DEF book to his mother Juan se lo regaló. Juan her-DAT it-ACC gift-PST-3SG

Not only Spanish but other Latin languages also display SOV ordering when pronouns are used as direct and indirect objects. Since pronouns refer to something already mentioned in the discourse, it could be that items bearing given information are anchored to the previous utterances and therefore come to the front of the sentence. In Spanish, these pronouns can remain in the postverbal position, but in that case pronouns are agglutinated and incorporated into the verb as in (11b). Such idiosyncratic behavior of pronouns might be explained by assuming that elements of given information lack prominence enough to be encoded as independent words when they are posited in the postverbal position. (11)a.

b.

Me lo escribe por favor. me-DAT it-ACC write-IMP-SG for favor ‘Please write it to me’. Escríbemelo por favor. write-IMP-SG-me-DAT-it-ACC for favor ‘Please write it to me’.

Although a more elaborate analysis would be needed, such ordering of pronouns is not unexpected within CG’s framework if their nature of being given information is taken into account. Hence MAP Grammar is also capable of accommodating this phenomenon, with a slight modification on the nature of the pronouns of the language in question.

Concluding remarks Having examined MAP Grammar from the viewpoint of CG thus far, this chapter has demonstrated that MAP Grammar is a cognitively reasonable and valid approach to English education, in that it explicitly utilizes the ‘natural path’ of human cognition.

MAP Grammar

61

As a final remark, I would like to comment on the possibility of contribution of linguistic theories to pedagogy. The paradigm of cognitive linguistics emerged in the ‘core’ matters such as grammar and semantics, and this theory has gradually been applied to various fields such as phonology, historical linguistics and L1 acquisition. In the 2000s, an approach called ‘cognitive applied linguistics’ began to emerge, employing critical notions of cognitive linguistics for teaching and learning the L2. One of such attempts is Littlemore’s (2009), and the focus-on-forms approach is largely compatible with CG’s claim regarding the emphasis on form-meaning pairings. However, it has been pointed out that the range of application is currently limited to intermediate or advanced learners, not to novice learners who have just started their L2 learning. For instance, the case of semantic difference between the double-object construction and its prepositional paraphrase actually intrigues advanced learners at college, but it would be too early to bring up such issues when they first encounter this alternation of constructions. In this regard, MAP Grammar promises to be a successful and helpful program for beginners as well, supported by theoretical linguistics, cognitive psychology, cultural psychology and so forth.

Notes 1 In this regard, see Tomasello (2003) for verb-island hypothesis that children first acquire verb-specific phrases and later acquire an abstract grammatical construction as generalization over individual instances they have learned. 2 As for the conditions for the proper use of passives, it has been proposed that the subject of the passive should be affected in some way (Bolinger, 1975), or that the passive should function as characterization of the subject (Takami, 1995). 3 ‘Locative alternation’ is a special case where the setting is perceived as prominent and thus assigned the status of subject or object. For example, we can say ‘The garden is swarming with bees’, instead of ‘Bees are swarming in the garden’, only if bees are all over the garden. See Langacker (1991b, pp. 231–232) and Levin (1993) for detail. 4 We can see that the notion of time is metaphorically structured in terms of space, looking at expressions like ‘Christmas is coming’. ‘We’ll have no class after Christmas’. See Lakoff and Johnson (1980) for detail. 5 Note that we are drawing comparison with the Japanese language here as an example, and that this discussion may apply to other languages as well. 6 For instance, having watched the same animated video of an underwater scene, both American and Japanese students referred to focal fishes, but Japanese students made more than 60% more references to background elements such as water, bubbles and so on. (Nisbett, 2003, pp. 259–260) Nisbett’s hypothesis might be controversial because of its simple dichotomy of Westerners and Easterners, but the tendencies he points out merit further investigations in cultural psychology, anthropology and linguistics. 7 As another kind of natural path, Langacker observes that ergative/absolutive languages employ ‘conceptual autonomy’ for case marking systems. See Langacker (2000, pp. 36–38) for detail. 8 In this regard, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) proposes the conceptual metaphor of ‘causes are forces’.

62

Kazumi Taniguchi

References Bolinger, D. (1975). On the passive in English. LACUS 1, 57–80. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryer, M. S. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from http://wals.info/ chapter/81 Ikegami, Y. (1981). Suru to naru no gengogaku [Linguistics of do and become]. Tokyo: Taishukan shoten. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (1991a). Foundations of cognitive grammar vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (1991b). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Nisbett, R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently . . . and why. New York: Free Press. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles in categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in crosscultural psychology (Vol. 1. pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press. Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language (Vol. 4, pp. 625–629). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Takami, K. (1995). Kinou-teki koubun-ron ni yoru nichieigo hikaku [A functional approach to constructions in English and Japanese]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Part II

MAP Grammar and issues in ELT

5

MAP Grammar and ESP Beyond the classroom Hajime Terauchi and Sayako Maswana

Introduction In this chapter, we discuss how MAP Grammar can lead learners to use English effectively outside the confines of the language classroom by introducing an ESP genre-based approach. MAP Grammar provides a framework which helps learners to understand how and where to use particular grammatical points based on meaning and can increase learners’ intelligible output with little burden. We argue that for learners to use English beyond the classroom, we should first recognize that the basis of MAP Grammar is closely related to the ideational metafunction of Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) proposed by Halliday and other like-minded linguists. Ideational metafunction, one of the three categories of language use, is chiefly concerned with our understanding and construal of the world and the content of messages. MAP Grammar is a resource to help learners express their ideas and make meaning through creating and understanding sentences, thus supporting the ideational metafunction while also leaving some room for specific contexts in which to achieve meaningful communication. This social aspect of language is integral to any communication, which is conceptualized together with Halliday’s two other metafunctions: interpersonal and textual. A language is both semantic and functional, and SFG considers it a “system of meanings” (Bloor & Bloor, 2013, p. 2). When we use language to make meanings, we always do so in specific situations, and the grammar, vocabulary, tone (for speaking) and style of the language used in actual discourse is greatly influenced by the complex aspects of those situations. In addition to analyzing lexico-grammar at the sentence level, SFG looks at text structures and cohesion using the concepts of Theme (the initial constituent of the sentence) and Rheme (the rest of the sentence). Analysis of the thematic progression, how Theme and Rheme progress in a text (i.e., the connection between the sentences), informs how writers and speakers make arguments and construct texts in specific social contexts beyond the sentence level. English learners, particularly those whose exposure to the English language is limited to the language classroom (such as in an EFL environment), need to expand their opportunities for actual English use. The specific contexts and

66

Hajime Terauchi and Sayako Maswana

situations in which English is used are influential on language choice in communication, such as writing a business e-mail or speaking at a job interview, and are termed genres which are generally defined as socially recognized communicative events in ESP research. ESP is closely related to SFG in its understanding of a language, its descriptive approach to the actual instances of language and its pedagogical application objectives. However, the two approaches place a different degree of emphasis on genre, the communicative purpose of the text, the needs of learners, the discourse structure of the text, the register of the language and the lexico-grammatical relations to texts. In particular, to describe the rhetorical structure of a text, ESP researchers often utilize the concept of move, a functional unit of a text of a particular genre, which is larger than the scope of thematic progression based on Theme and Rheme. Each move has a specific communicative purpose, and ESP researchers have attempted to explain how community members conventionally use rhetorical structures to communicate in a specific genre through move analysis. After internalizing the MAP Grammar concept, which enables learners to produce comprehensible sentences, learners should be able to use English in a variety of situations by acquiring the contextual and genre knowledge required for specific settings. For that purpose, an ESP genre-based approach has proven helpful because of its close attention to learners’ needs. In the following sections, we will look at example genre texts taken from legal and academic English to highlight how the context and purpose of the text influence language use and how learners can acquire genre knowledge by presenting similarities and differences among texts from a genre viewpoint.

English for Specific Purposes ESP is often employed when teaching English in tertiary education and in the workplace to help learners acquire the language needed to actively participate in the target discourse community – an important concept of ESP – through learning the knowledge of a shared genre. According to Noguchi (2009), knowledge of genre, including how language is used in a particular genre, can be acquired based on ‘systemic literacy’. Referring to Brown’s definition of systemic literacy as “the understanding of the processes and consequences of complex social systems” (as cited in Noguchi, 2009, p. 17), she claims that language (i.e., English) is crucial to gaining access to systemic literacy. She argues that since current disciplinary knowledge and even genre knowledge continues to evolve in our rapidly changing global society, learning ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ is important in an English language class. The flexible nature of MAP Grammar, compared to the conventional grammar approach prevalent in EFL contexts such as Japan, allows learners to learn the how rather than the what of genre knowledge by using the English language as a tool and grammatical knowledge as a resource. What, then, is genre knowledge and how can it be acquired? Let us first examine the following recipe of a Japanese dish, an example of the instruction genre.

MAP Grammar and ESP

67

Niku-Jaga (Meat and Potato Stew) recipe Directions 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

Peel and cut onions into eight pieces, carrots into 2 cm pieces and potatoes into four pieces. Boil string beans. Cut sliced beef into 3 cm pieces. Oil the pot and stir-fry the beef at medium heat. When the beef has browned, stir the onions, carrots, and potatoes together with the beef. Add water, sake and Japanese soup stock (dashi) and bring to a boil. Remove the foam from the surface and then simmer about 10 minutes on low heat with the lid on. Add sugar, sweet sake (mirin) and soy sauce, and bring to a boil. Remove the foam from the surface. Simmer approximately 10 minutes on low to medium heat with the lid partly open. Serve on a plate with the string beans.

If we categorize the sentences in the recipe, all of them fit the MAP Grammar framework. Common features of instruction texts such as recipes, manuals and guidelines include particular use of words (e.g., imperative form), topic-specific vocabulary (e.g., simmer, string beans), shorter sentences (e.g., average 11.4 words, SD = 4.97, much shorter compared to the economics research articles, for example, which have an average of 25.7 words, SD = 12.34, as shown in the next section) and the particular discourse structure (e.g., chronological sequence). These features are typically observed in the genre of instruction texts to make the writing clear and easy to follow for a broad target audience. If we understand the sentences and their meanings, these specific features and the context in which we experience the instruction help us recognize the text as a recipe. Differences among instruction texts can be found in the length of texts, the level of vocabulary, and the specialized knowledge needed to understand the topic of focus. Another genre text example here is taken from the Constitution of Japan (see Figure 5.1), a type of legal English. Legal English is widely considered difficult to understand, as it has several unique characteristics, such as the frequent use of common words with uncommon meanings, tautologies, loan translations, use of words that have become archaic in other genres, and jargon (Terauchi, 2001). Some of these characteristics are seen in the examples in Figure 5.1 (e.g., shall be, legislation), which would make the text difficult to understand, but their sentence structures can still be explained by the MAP Grammar framework. There is a variety of legal genres that present specific practices and conventions of discourse and language use in English. One example is a will, the sentence structures of which again can be explained with the MAP Grammar framework. Kurzon (1984) analyzed will texts based on the thematic progression, as explained earlier, and found that the derived theme pattern dominates in this genre in such a way that Themes always co-occur with given information, and Rhemes accompanied new information in an orderly fashion (see Bloor & Bloor,

68

Hajime Terauchi and Sayako Maswana α

α

to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare,*

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHOM/ WHAT(HOW)

All of the people

shall be respected

as individuals.

WHO

DOES (IS)

Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

shall,

be

WHERE

WHEN

WHOM/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

the supreme consideration

in legislation and in other governmental affairs.

Figure 5.1 The Constitution of Japan, article 13 Note: *The embedded phrase can also be classified into MAP Grammar.

2013, Chapters 4 and 5 for more on information and thematic structures). In fact, this finding is not unique to specialized legal texts. Kurzon concludes that difficulties in understanding the text are not due to the thematic structure but to other factors such as specialized words, sentence length, and frequent postmodifiers in NPs (Kurzon, 1984, p. 50). These examples imply two things: 1) MAP Grammar can explain the grammar of authentic texts used outside and beyond the classroom environment, which can thus be considered to be the groundwork of any text, and 2) genre knowledge and conventions can be represented by their particular language use, specific and technical vocabulary and conventional rhetorical structure. When using English, particularly at the tertiary level and in the workplace, learners first have to acquire these features via either explicit or implicit instruction and through training of genre awareness and actual participation in the discourse community – after which they should be able to identify genre features by themselves. Next, we will illustrate this point more in detail using research articles as examples of academic genres in English.

Academic English: Research articles In this section, we draw on compiled texts of 60 recent research article introductions in the disciplines of medicine and economics (30 article introductions from three leading journals in each discipline) to represent both science and social science studies. Consider the following sentence from a medical paper

MAP Grammar and ESP

69

introduction: “All three Ebola virus vaccines and the Marburg virus vaccine were well tolerated and immunogenic” (Kibuuka et al., 2014, p. 1546). This sentence has a relatively long nominal group as a subject (WHO) followed by passive voice past tense (DOES/IS), which shows that even the most seemingly difficult academic sentences in the research articles fit well into the MAP Grammar descriptions. This example sentence from a medical article might be difficult to read because of its terminology (e.g., immunogenic) as well as non-clausal modifiers embedded in NPs (e.g., the Marburg virus vaccine). In fact, Biber and Gray (2010) report this ‘compressed’ style of NPs as characteristic of academic prose. The accurate interpretation of long nominal groups requires specialist knowledge in the discipline. Next, consider the following sentence from an economics paper introduction: “Although these conclusions are contingent on the functional form and other assumptions embedded in the model, together with the coefficient estimates they paint a consistent picture of the relative importance of information in different product categories” (Bronnenberg, Dubé, Gentzkow, & Shapiro, 2015, p. 1675). This might similarly look difficult due to its terminology (e.g., coefficient estimate) and its long and complex sentence structure, which has a dependent clause and an independent clause with an adverbial phrase. These features are often pointed out as characteristics that make academic writing formal and difficult. However, the difficulties of these features do not affect the applicability of the MAP Grammar framework to sentences in research articles. We manually applied the MAP Grammar framework to 60 randomly selected sentences in the article introduction corpus and found that all of the texts could be explained based on the framework. The earlier examples imply that what differs from general English or English learned in the classroom and characterizes academic writing is the level and use of vocabulary, certain fixed expressions, and rhetorical structures. Compared to general English texts, the texts in the corpus demonstrate a higher usage of words from the academic vocabulary list provided by Coxhead (2000), as well as specialized/technical vocabulary and proper nouns that are outside general and academic word lists. Using AntWordProfiler (Anthony, 2013), we found in the medical article introductions, the most frequent 2,000 words listed by West (1953) accounted for 62%, 11% were academic words and 27% were words outside the two lists. The economics article introductions were 74%, 14% and 12%, respectively. Although there is some variance between the two disciplines, the results are broadly consistent with the use of academic words in academic texts suggested by Coxhead (2000). This highlights the importance of continuously acquiring vocabulary to participate in academic and professional communities. In addition, certain lexical bundles (i.e., multi-word expressions) were observed more frequently than in general English texts as indicated by Chen and Baker (2010) and Hyland (2008). These multi-word expressions, such as “in the context of”, “it is necessary to” and “as a result of” do not consist of difficult words, but they are characteristically used in academic contexts to help signal and achieve specific communicative functions. For example, “the purpose of this study is to”

70

Hajime Terauchi and Sayako Maswana

is likely to be used to introduce the new research in the introduction section (Cortes, 2013). Another important aspect of research articles is the use of specific rhetorical structures for article introductions as represented by a conceptual model called the Create a Research Space (CARS) model (Swales, 1990). This model includes three units (moves) that serve a different communicative function: (1) establishing a research territory, (2) establishing a niche (a research gap), and (3) occupying the niche (filling the gap). With an additional set of introduction texts written for this chapter by the present authors, see the typical rhetorical structure that follows (underlining added for emphasis). Underlined expressions in the example are considered indicative of a particular move, although they are not always extracted as lexical bundles due to the high variance of similar expressions. (1) Pedagogical English grammar has increased in importance in recent years in Japan because of the accelerated need to foster students who are competent in communicative English in a globalized society. (2) Although there are many grammar books based on the conventional presentation of grammar items in isolation that are primarily aimed at university entrance exams, there is little literature that guides teachers and students on the use of grammar for the purpose of communication. (3) In this paper, we present a new approach to PG called MAP Grammar, which helps learners at any level easily understand English grammar and avoid making global errors. Although different structures are used to varying degrees depending on disciplines and authors, the CARS model has been empirically verified as a conventional introduction structure commonly used across different disciplines. For example, all article introductions used the essential three moves except one instance of no move 2 in both discipline. In addition, and 63% of medical articles and 17% of economics articles in the corpus followed this model structure. Although the number of economics articles seems small, economics introductions (average 1,758.3 words, SD = 459.50) were much longer and included more information than the medicine counterparts (average 454.3 words, SD = 186.21). If we include the economics introductions which employed the conventional pattern followed by repetitions of moves 2 and 3, the number increases to 57%. Understanding academic rhetorical structures and writing accordingly by conducting research meaningful to the community is key to being accepted by the academic community. Regarding EAP, we could say that there are genre features that are commonly observed across disciplines such as writing based on the CARS model and the vocabulary listed in Coxhead’s academic word list, which is called English for General Academic Purposes. In contrast, English used for specific disciplines is categorized as English for Specific Academic Purposes. Numerous ESP/EAP studies report similarities and differences in the use of vocabulary, lexico-grammar, lexical bundles and rhetorical structures across disciplines (e.g., Hyland, 2002, 2007, 2009; Kuteeva & McGrath, 2015). Those research data are

MAP Grammar and ESP

71

readily available, and they have been introduced in academic writing instructions. Genre knowledge and conventions, which cover language use in a broad sense, are the target knowledge and skills that need to be learned in university courses. Finally, at this level of academic writing, understanding the culture of the target discourse community and demonstrating the ability to write as a member of the community can pose difficulty even for native speakers of English. The genre features are related to the way community members communicate with each other in which professional expertise precedes linguistic background. The earlier examples indicate that even the grammar used in professional English and advanced writing follows the MAP Grammar concept, although academic texts utilize distinctive uses of vocabulary, lexical bundles and rhetorical structures, which should be learned through an ESP genre-based approach.

Concluding remarks We briefly examined how MAP Grammar is theoretically related to SFG and ESP. Using examples of the recipe, the constitution, the will and the research articles, we have described their genre-specific features, which should be acquired after becoming able to understand and produce English sentences based on MAP Grammar in the classroom. For learners to be able to use English in a manner functionally appropriate to purpose and context, it is important to consider SFG and ESP perspectives. Although this chapter has overviewed only written genre texts, the claims that MAP Grammar covers basic sentence structure and that learners need contextual understanding and genre knowledge are similarly applicable to spoken genre texts (e.g., see Terauchi, Fujita, & Naito, 2015, for the English required in business meetings). Therefore, we recommend encouraging young learners, basic and independent users, to practice the four English skills based on MAP Grammar to allow them to prepare for acquiring the vocabulary, rhetorical structures and, most importantly, identifying the genre features required for the actual use of English beyond language classrooms. Future studies are also needed to examine the effectiveness of ESP genre-based instruction, which integrates a MAP Grammar approach for less proficient learners to empirically explore the links among MAP Grammar, SFG and ESP.

References Anthony, L. (2013). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from www.laurenceanthony.net/ Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2013). The functional analysis of English (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Bronnenberg, B. J., Dubé, J.-P., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2015). Do pharmacists buy Bayer? Informed shoppers and the brand premium. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(4), 1669–1726. doi:10.1093/qje/qjv024

72

Hajime Terauchi and Sayako Maswana

Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14(2), 30–49. doi:10.1075/scl.65 Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33–43. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002 Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385–395. doi:10.2307/3587951 Hyland, K. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: Disciplinary variation in academic writing. In K. Fløttum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 89–108). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 5–22. Kibuuka, H., Berkowitz, N. M., Millard, M., Enama, M. E., Tindikahwa, A., Sekiziyivu, A. B., . . . Ledgerwood, J. E. (2014). Safety and immunogenicity of Ebola virus and Marburg virus glycoprotein DNA vaccines assessed separately and concomitantly in healthy Ugandan adults: A phase 1b, randomised, double-blind, placebocontrolled clinical trial. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1545–1554. Kurzon, D. (1984). Themes, hyperthemes and the discourse structure of British legal texts. Text, 4, 31–55. doi:10.1515/text.1.1984.4.1-3.31 Kuteeva, M., & McGrath, L. (2015). The theoretical research article as a reflection of disciplinary practices: The case of pure mathematics. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 215–235. doi:10.1093/applin/amt042 Noguchi, J. (2009). The CALL classroom as a window to systemic literacy. Cybermedia Forum, 10, 17–21. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Terauchi, H. (2001). English for academic legal purposes in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Liber Press. Terauchi, H., Fujita, R., & Naito, H. (Eds.). (2015). Essential English for business meetings. Tokyo: Asahi Press. West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London, UK: Longman, Green & Co.

6

MAP and SLA Teaching English to young learners in the EFL classroom Emiko Izumi

MAP Grammar, or simply MAP, proposed by Tajino (2011) is an intuitive and tangible method of grammar instruction. The concept of the Order of Meanings in MAP, as discussed in Chapter 1, follows Halliday’s Systematic Functional Linguistics Theory insofar as linguistic elements can be thought of as chunks or slots, and their order flows parallel to a stream of thought similar to the pattern of stories – namely, who-does-what-where-when. In other words, it could be said that the order of semantic roles is likely accordant with the natural process of language comprehension. According to Webster (2015), “M.A.K. Halliday’s Systemic Functional Theory, with its emphasis on exploring the semogenic ‘meaning-making’ power of language, provides the handle we need to understand language as involving intentional acts of meaning” (p. 10). This chapter explores the possibility of applying this ‘meaning-making’ in MAP to Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYL) from the perspective of SLA and teaching methodology with implications for the EFL classroom.

Teaching English to young learners in Asian countries: the case of Japan TEYL has increasingly become a worldwide concern over the past few decades. Many Asian EFL countries, including China and Korea, have made English education compulsory, often from the primary level, and even as early the first grade in Thailand, and cities such as Beijing, and Seoul. In Japan, the Report on the Future Improvement and Enhancement of English Education, issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2014), declared that amid increasing globalization, the development of students’ proficiency in English is crucial for the country’s future. Many improvements and changes to the national curriculum are planned; nevertheless, there are still several issues to be addressed, especially in the development of students’ communication skills. As a result of reforms of the national educational policy by MEXT (2011, 2014, 2016), foreign language activities are to be conducted for a total of 35 hours over the course of an academic year from the third grade of elementary, while students from the fifth grade will be required to study English as a compulsory subject for 70 hours from 2020. The overall objectives of the

74

Emiko Izumi

course of study are 1) to form the foundation of students’ communicative abilities while developing in them an understanding of languages and cultures through various experiences, 2) to foster a positive attitude toward communication and 3) to familiarize students with the sounds and basic expressions of foreign languages (MEXT, 2011). Additionally, English grammar is not supposed to be taught explicitly using metalinguistic explanations. That is, the emphasis should be on teaching elementary school students to recognize the letters and sounds of the alphabet, as well as to notice differences between their L1 and (typically) EFL. For example, sounds, and features ‘word order’ should be highlighted to facilitate an understanding of the English language system. As a result, learning is to be done through activities and materials, such as songs, chants or storybooks, as opposed to traditional implicit instruction methods. While these are desirable goals, there are several practical considerations that remain to be addressed, such as teacher qualification, length of instruction and methodology. In Japanese elementary schools, a homeroom teacher (HRT) teaches English alone or team teaches with an assistant language teacher (ALT). ALTs are native speakers of English, near-native speakers of English, or qualified Japanese teachers of English (JTE). Unfortunately, it is often the case that the HRT does not have requisite knowledge or experience teaching English, and the HRT may only be able to provide limited English input for students. In addition, in Japan, English is currently only offered one hour per week at the fifth and sixth grades. Finally, English is one of the most difficult languages for Japanese to learn because the linguistic distance between the languages is so far apart specifically in terms of sound, orthography, and grammar.1 The difference of word order is particularly problematic for young learners. For instance, SVO (I like dogs.) in English transforms to SOV (watashi-wa inu-ga suki-desu : I dogs like) in Japanese. Although a number of researchers have proposed useful and effective methods for TEYL (e.g., Cameron, 2001; Ellis, Brewster, & Girard, 2002; Mckay & Guse, 2007; Menyuk & Brisk, 2005; Philip, Oliver, & Mackey, 2008; Pinter, 2006, 2011; Shin & Crandall, 2014), given limited class hours and HRTs’ often insufficient English knowledge and proficiency in the EFL context, it is important to take a closer look at how English is taught to young learners. Specifically, how to expose students to EFL in order to meet MEXT’s objectives and develop students’ communicative abilities is of paramount importance.

Language acquisition theories concerning grammatical construction First language acquisition Considering the theories and principles of SLA in TEYL brings us, perhaps surprisingly, to theories of L1 acquisition. For example, by the age of two, most children begin to utter at least 50 different words imitating others around them and combining the words into telegraphic sentences such as ‘Mommy juice’ and

MAP and SLA 75 ‘baby fall down’ (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). The significant issue is that they make sentences by appropriately reflecting the word order of the language they are hearing and combining words with meaningful relationships depending on context. By the age of four, children can usually manage L1 language functions, such as asking questions, giving simple opinions, reporting daily events and creating imaginative stories. In addition, they can use vocabulary and grammar correctly, nearly all the time, especially meaning-oriented word order – namely, the alignment of semantic roles. Explanations of how children form L1 syntax has traditionally been split between two theories: a principles and parameters approach based on Chomsky’s (1981) universal grammar (admittedly now considered to be rather outdated) and a usage-based model proposed by Tomasello and colleagues (Tomasello, 2003). The usage-based model emphasizes a strong language mechanism that evolves from cognitive abilities, primarily social-cognitive skills. Meaning is primary, and structure emerges from use. Children rely on two cognitive abilities: (1) intention reading, which includes joint attention, and (2) pattern-finding, which pushes them beyond individual utterances to create abstract linguistic schemas or constructions (Goldberg, 1995, 2006; Tomasello, 2000, 2003). Finally, children develop slot and frame patterns, which seem fundamental to MAP. From the perspective of the usage-based approach, children need sufficient linguistic input to facilitate the process of inventing linguistic constructions from the language they hear. Specifically, input needs to include: (1) type frequency for analogy, (2) token frequency for entrenchment and (3) statistical patterns which lead to paradigmatic categories, all aspects of cue validity, which connect within the form of patterns. They also need opportunities for attempting to use these patterns in exemplar-based learning and categorization (Kashiwagi, 2012). For clarification, the children’s developmental sequence can be summarized as follows (Figure 6.1).

Second language acquisition Theories of SLA also borrow heavily from the theories and paradigms of L1 acquisition, such as the behaviorist, innatist, cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, albeit with certain important caveats. The major differences between L1 and L2 acquisition lie in the obvious fact that learners have already acquired their mother tongues, they are matured, and their cognitive levels are much higher

one word (12 months)

word combination/ pivot schema (18 months)

item-based construction (24 months)

Figure 6.1 L1 development based on a usage-based model

abstract syntactic constructions (36 months)

76

Emiko Izumi

than infants acquiring an L1. Further, positive and negative transfer (interference) from the L1 affects the order of attained levels of L2 acquisition at different interlanguage stages. The influence of the L1 is observed in grammatical morpheme acquisition sequences. For example, Japanese learners of English can be observed to acquire the possessive case at a relatively early stage due to similar rules coexisting in Japanese grammar. However, articles and pronunciation are acquired at a much later stage since neither article nor consonant clusters exist in the Japanese language. Likewise, and perhaps most relevant to MAP, acquisition of word order at the sentence level is also delayed. Although language input plays an important role in L2 acquisition, as well as L1 acquisition, both the quantity and quality of L2 input differ from L1 caretaker talk or child-directed speech, which is almost always unconditionally positive. In a classic language acquisition hypothesis, Krashen (1977) claims the importance of comprehensible input and suggests that children acquire language naturally by listening to language that is somewhat above their current ability (i + 1). As an alternative to Krashen’s input hypothesis, Swain (1985) emphasizes the indispensable role of output. Upon producing output, learners are able to notice the gap between what they can express and what they cannot do. They repair or modify their utterances in a series of hypothesizing and examining processes in which they explore whether what is said is grammatically correct or not. In the process, they raise their conscious awareness of language features and develop the ability of syntactic as well as semantic processing. These early hypotheses have been expanded and subsumed by newer models of SLA such as the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996), the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990), information processing (Dekeyser, 1998), input processing (Vanpatten, 2004) and processability theory (Pienemann, 1999). Accordingly, L2 theories inform methods of teaching grammar to young learners. In particular, the role of input and noticing are crucial. In MAP, teachers should encourage students’ noticing of language functions and the who-does-what order first, and then gradually shift to get them accustomed to sequential patterns. However, reliance on substitution drills or pattern practice without meaning, seem to be demotivating. In contrast to traditional approaches to L2 instruction, usage-based theory places less importance on skill learning and structure-based instruction. Rather, the emphasis is on the frequency with which learners encounter specific linguistic features in the input and opportunities to develop a stronger network of associations between these features and the contexts in which they occur. Learners encounter the target language in meaningful situations that are predictable to a considerable extent and based on formulaic units or chunks (Ellis, 2003). Learning language as a whole system, as opposed to a compilation of discrete parts, means that learners not only learn from input but also generalize grammar rules through their experiences. Lieven and Tomasello (2008) suggest that children develop their grammar in social contexts in processes as whole constructions, slots in constructions, and patterns between items in constructions which are more ‘island-like’. Thus, the model for early childhood English learning may be

MAP and SLA 77 viewed as item learning through exemplar-based learning initially, then gradually developing into slots, and eventually proceeding to rule-based learning. Children internalize language subconsciously and implicitly by processing input, then gradually conceptualize grammar rules from rich input, which eventually leads to acquisition of the abstract rules of the language. In an EFL instructional setting, however, the opportunities for students to listen, internalize, hypothesize, practice and use the language are extremely limited. More relevant to the PG we are concerned with in this volume, rather than learning complicated grammar rules, MAP is an accessible approach for young learners studying a foreign language for one or a few class hours per week.

Introducing MAP into TEYL classrooms Tomasello (2008) states, “Children learn language from their language experiences – there is no other way” (p. 168). Students learn the target language by imitating or repeating language they hear, and in the process, they associate words and phrases with other words and phrases that occur concurrently, or that they have already encountered. As children learn in context, they gradually come to understand the typical sentence patterns, such as SVO, as well as semantic roles, such as participant, process and circumstance/theme and rheme. Kashiwagi (2012) claims that children who learn English through verbal input in Japanese primary schools are exposed to many exemplars, are given the opportunity to imitate and repeat what they hear and to connect the meaning with the ‘English sound’. This procedure, termed exemplar-based learning, contrasts significantly with rule-based learning. She concludes that the more input children received, the more successfully they noticed form-meaning connections, even with previously unfamiliar verbs. In addition, older students can discover schematized patterns in a relatively short period of time. Contemporary approaches to L2 instruction target the development of both implicit and explicit knowledge by ensuring that students use language in meaningful interactions in the classroom. In the usage-based approach, learning takes place gradually as the number of links between language and meaning and among language forms are built up. As such, a meaning-order approach to the sentence (MAP Grammar) has several advantages in TEYL classes: •

•

Meaning-based instruction using sense units (wh-groups) is reasonable for both teachers and learners since it is readily visualized and associations between individual grammar items are clear. One clause structure with seven variations is easy for students to understand through the mapping of the five slots, and it is also easy for teachers to execute (see Part 3 in this volume for examples). Showing students that they can make new sentences by substituting words with similar semantic roles is easier and more effective than traditional explicit grammatical explanations using metalinguistic words.

78 •

•

Emiko Izumi Students have frequent opportunities to be exposed to comprehensible English input from teachers through abundant interaction focusing on meaning. Interesting, game-like methods motivate students. Students learn word order vsually, aurally and kinesthetically. Methods include using colors to differentiate semantic roles or slots (who-does-whom/what-where-when), manipulating and rearranging cards and listening to stories or singing songs.

In order for elementary-school-aged students to acquire English, teachers have to keep two principles in mind. First, as students listen to and become familiar with words, phrases, and sentences in English in meaningful, communicative contexts, they are unconsciously learning about the order of semantic roles. Second, teachers have to prepare activities that consolidate what students have previously heard and learned and show students similar patterns many times to allow them to slowly become aware of word order. The uniqueness of MAP is that it does not require the use of complicated grammar terminology or varied sentence patterns. It uses only one format that can be modified to include most sentences (see Tajino, 2011). To implement MAP methodology in the classroom, concise activities should be arranged systematically. First, students should be exposed to short levelappropriate stories, songs, chants, DVDs and CDs containing consistent target sentence patterns. Students should be encouraged to guess the meaning of the sentences, remembering what they have already learned and activating previously acquired schema. Next, teachers should begin to implicitly teach students the slots by asking a few referential wh-questions about the content while putting cards with keywords on the blackboard (see Figure 6.2, below). Students should be encouraged to practice phrases and hypothesize rules for word order after noticing the slots’ semantic roles (MAP Grammar) by themselves. In the following phase, meaningful and interesting communicative tasks or speaking games should follow. In this step, students should utilize the patterns previously

Who group

Does (Is) group

Whom / What (How) group

Where group

When group

at seven.

I

get up

You

are

He

plays

She

can ride

a unicycle.

The cat

chases

the mouse.

strong and brave. soccer

Figure 6.2 Samples of blackboard using word cards

in the park

on Sunday.

MAP and SLA 79 taught and create sentences for communication. Post-task activities might involve physical manipulation of word cards containing short phrases or descriptions, with students aligning them to match pictures or content by applying the MAP framework. It may be useful to have students imagine a train consisting of five cars as an analogy to the five slots. Teachers can also extend the activities to let students read and write phrases based on topics or stories that they know, and then have them put the phrase cards together in various combinations to make new sentences. Students should be prompted to take suitable phrases from other topics or stories to make substitution games or sequencing games. Confident students can read their sentences aloud and make original sentences using different words or verbs adhering to the order of semantic roles. In general, let students make sentences and express themselves as much as possible. Collaborative learning activities such as pair-work or group work are highly recommended so that students can support each other and learn actively using social-affective strategies (Oxford, 1990).

Implications from two trial studies examining MAP To examine how well students noticed the structure of English sentences with a particular focus on word order, a small study was conducted with 66 students in two fourth grade classrooms in Japan. Almost all of the participants surveyed were able to understand the notion of word order. The study also found that MAP-based, explicit instruction was more effective in understanding English sentence structures than implicit teaching using a picture book. A subsequent questionnaire survey was given to 55 homeroom teachers, who were not teachers of English, in order to explore general attitudes toward MAP and students’ English learning. The results indicated that most teachers believed that their students could not understand the English word order, they had no idea when the students develop the ability to understand the notion of word order, and they did not teach word order explicitly. Rather, they preferred to let the students notice the word order spontaneously through normal classroom activities, partly because of their belief that the conventional word order instruction, which is based on the five sentence patterns, is of limited value to young learners. This indicates that MAP, a fresh approach to grammar instruction, may make a significant contribution to the teaching of elementary school students because it does not rely on metalanguage (e.g., Subject, Object) which may hinder their understanding of the English word order.

Conclusion In this chapter, several implications of MAP theory in the TEYL field have been explored. MAP is a useful tool for TEYL practitioners, as it provides scaffolding for learners to overcome the excessive difficulty of understanding English grammar and structure. Through social interaction among teachers and students who are focusing on language function or semantic roles in a communicative context,

80

Emiko Izumi

students will learn word order subconsciously and spontaneously (Vygotsky, 1978). Global errors such as incorrect word order that lead to communication breakdowns must be pointed out and repaired by corrective feedback (e.g., recasts, clarification requests or elicitation). Little by little, students’ language is connected and spun into perfect sentences while fluency and automaticity are developed. Ideally, this approach is a form-focused method of instruction aiming at the acquisition of both grammar points and communicative competence. MAP Grammar instruction can be easily applied as a classroom routine. While it avoids explicitly teaching grammar through metalinguistic terminology, the teacher is constantly reinforcing the semantic roles of various slots and building upon on students’ prior knowledge. In particular, it is suited to children’s learning styles as they learn from their real experiences and meaningful interactions with peers and adults. Focusing on meaning-ordered methods enables children to raise their awareness of grammar structures, especially differences in word order. In particular, in the circumstances of Asian countries where the language distance between the L1 and English L2 is considerable, noticing differences is crucial. However, children are not overwhelmed by learning English grammar in the process. Finally, children are fond of learning in this way because the approach is interesting, useful and comprehensible to even very young learners. Before concluding this chapter, further issues must be addressed. JTEs tend to teach English grammar through the five-sentence-pattern framework (see the five-clause patterns in Chapter 1, this volume) using metalinguistic terminology, such as subject, verb, object, compliment, modifier by default. Teacher training is indispensable to introduce MAP methods and incorporate them into English classes. Moreover, interesting, attractive, hands-on teaching materials with detailed teaching manuals are necessary. Language curriculum development, including grammar at the primary level, is also necessary. MAP as a catalyst may change the style of teaching language and grammar, opening the gate for children in the 21st century.

Note 1 The Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of State has compiled approximate learning expectations for a number of languages based on the length of time it takes to achieve general professional proficiency in speaking and in reading and made a list of language difficulty. Japanese ranks at Category III: languages which are quite difficult for native English speakers, 88 weeks. Thus the reverse may also be assumed.

References Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching language to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Dekeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.),

MAP and SLA 81 Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, G., Brewster, J., & Girard, D. (2002). The primary English teacher’s guide. London: Pearson Education. Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford: Blackwell. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kashiwagi, K. (2012). Children’s form-meaning connections to verb phrases and exemplar-based learning in Japanese elementary school. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 23, 17–32. doi:10.20581/arele.23.0_17 Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 144–158). Washington: TESOL Press. Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). New York: Routledge. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–68). New York: Academic Press. Mckay, P., & Guse, J. (2007). Five-minute activities for young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Menyuk, P., & Brisk, M. (2005). Language development and education: Children with varying language experiences. London: Palgrave Macmillan. MEXT. (2011). Foreign language activities. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/ component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/17/1303755_011.pdf MEXT. (2014). Report on the future improvement and enhancement of English education (Outline). Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/1372625. htm MEXT. (2016). Reform of compulsory education. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/_ menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/004/siryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/12/12/1 380469_3_2_1_1.pdf Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. Philip, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2008). Second language acquisition and theyounger learner: Child’s play? Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Pienemann, M. (1999). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 17–46. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129

82

Emiko Izumi

Shin, J. K., & Crandall, J. (2014). Teaching young learners English: From theory to practice. Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its environment. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Tajino, A. (2011). Imijun: eigo gakushuho [The order of meaning: English learning method]. Tokyo: Discover 21. Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1/2), 61–82. doi:10.1515/cogl.2001.012 Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum and Associates. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webster, J. (2015). Understanding verbal art: A functional linguistic approach. Heidelberg: Springer.

7

MAP Grammar and ICT applications Toshiyuki Kanamaru and Daniel Roy Pearce

Second or foreign language acquisition is a complex and multifaceted process. Most practitioners of language teaching would agree that the entire range of skills needed to successfully communicate in an L2, as well as the time and effort necessary to imbue such skills in learners is simply beyond the range of what is possible in the classroom. As early as 1991, Nina Garrett suggested that, for teachers and researchers, “since so complex and ability [as a foreign language] can hardly be ‘taught’, our job is to create an environment – in class or in our materials – in which students can work on acquiring that ability” (p. 92). In the more than two decades since Garrett’s suggestion, information technology has grown almost exponentially, both in terms of technological capability as well as general availability. In a review of her seminal 1991 article nearly 20 years after its publication, Garrett (2009) remarked that while she had been able to provide a nearly complete overview of CALL materials in one article previously, expansion in technology meant that any extensive review of CALL developments required at least a full journal volume. Technologies such as desktop computers, the internet, tablets and smartphones have become “nearly ubiquitous in industrialized countries” (Golonka et al., 2014, p. 70). The range of CALL materials available to consumers has also grown to a great variety; from full online courses, to intelligent tutoring systems, pre-scheduled flashcard review applications and automated lexicon building programs. When incorporated into the languagelearning process, such innovations in technology “can increase learner interest and motivation, provide students with increased access to target language (TL) input, interaction opportunities, and feedback” (ibid., pp. 70–71). ICT materials, such as tablets, are becoming increasingly common in educational institutes at various levels both in language learning and other subjects (e.g., Berson, Berson, & McGlinn Manfra, 2012), and younger learners particularly are becoming more acquainted with their use (see Geer et al., 2017). Space precludes a fuller discussion of the research on ICT in education and CALL, although such discussions are of relevance to a broad audience, from teachers and learners, to businesses and even governments (Chapelle, 2009). Technological tools and their applications in language learning specifically have been given multiple book-length treatments (e.g., Beatty, 2013; Chapelle, 2001; Levy & Stockwell, 2013) and technological developments continue to be influenced by and have an influence on SLA theory.

84

Toshiyuki Kanamaru and Daniel Roy Pearce

Any language teaching practitioner must be aware that while the increased variety and availability of ICT materials has the potential to greatly expand the potential of the language classroom and language learning in general, it is also increasingly likely for a teacher or learner becomes overwhelmed with the sheer range of options available. Particularly for the language classroom, a teacher must be well acquainted with any ICT materials they wish to incorporate into a language course. Indeed, as Norman (1998) suggested nearly two decades ago, successful implementation of technology may be more a result of the users’ understanding or expertise with the medium than the inherent possibilities of the technology itself. While the application introduced here, Imijun de manabu Eigo no shikumi [Learning the structure of English with MAP Grammar], is still in the developmental stage, and therefore perhaps not yet fully realized (discussed further next), its relatively simple design, and singular objective (aiding the acquisition of MAP Grammar’s horizontal axis, see Chapter 1, this volume) might actually reduce barriers to teachers and learners who may not be proficient users of the technology. As it is becoming increasingly important to “select and to match [an ICT tool] to [a] task with clarity and foresight” (Levy, 2009, p. 777), perhaps simpler tools such as the application introduced next will find themselves readily incorporated into a language program. This chapter will first describe the MAP Grammar iPad® application, before introducing empirical data from a pilot study into the effectiveness of the application, as well as voices from learners who have experimented with the application in various settings.1

Imijun iPad® application The Imijun (MAP Grammar) application was developed for the iPad® as a collaborative project between Fukuoka University, Gifu University, Kyoto University, and NHK Publishing Inc. The application was designed to specifically target native speakers of Japanese. All menus and instructions are provided in Japanese only (see Figure 7.1). As a pilot developmental project, the content of the application was somewhat limited with seven chapters covering various grammar points, consisting of four to six problems each (see Figure 7.2) and a further seven chapters of applied problems, in which some conversational context has been provided for each target sentence. Each problem was a translation activity of a single target sentence, with the pilot version of the application having a total of 58 target sentences. A number of the target sentences were developed specifically for the application, with the remainder sourced from the NHK Publishing textbook, Mastering Junior High School Imijun Writing Practice Workbook (Tajino, 2014). Each problem is presented with the meaning of the target sentence in the Japanese language, and the corresponding English words appear in a random order at the bottom of the screen. The center of the screen is occupied by the MAP Grammar horizontal axis (who/does(is)/who(m)/what/where/when), again in Japanese. To solve the problem, the user must drag the relevant English words

Figure 7.1 Home screen of the Imijun application

Figure 7.2 Contents page of the Imijun application

86

Toshiyuki Kanamaru and Daniel Roy Pearce

Figure 7.3 Operating the Imijun application

into the appropriate meaning box on the MAP Grammar axis (see Figure 7.3). To the top right of the meaning boxes is a Japanese hint button, which, when pressed displays the Japanese language items in the appropriate order in each meaning box. Within the actual tasks is also an English hint button, which when held down, shows the Japanese meaning of the English vocabulary at the bottom of the screen. Finally, the user may skip a problem by using the button at the top right, or return to a previous problem with the button on the top left.

Effectiveness of the MAP Grammar application In order to examine the effectiveness of the application, a pilot study was carried out at a senior high school in Kyoto Prefecture, Japan, in late 2016. Twenty students were chosen at random from two classes of second-year students (around 16–17 years of age). According to the supervising teachers of the classes, the students’ English proficiency was roughly about the national average level, and thus may be assumed to be equivalent to Level A1–A2 on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) scale. In a questionnaire prior to experimenting with the application, the students were required to answer a few questions about their attitude towards the English language. The responses shown in Figures 7.4–7.6 showed that they generally lacked confidence in their English ability,

Somewhat agree 5% Strongly disagree 35%

Neither agree nor disagree 15%

Somewhat disagree 45%

Figure 7.4 Student responses to the statement “I am confident in English”

Somewhat agree 40% Strongly agree 60%

Figure 7.5 Student responses to the statement “English grammar is difficult”

Other 5% Listening 24%

Reading 3%

Writing 38%

Speaking 30%

Figure 7.6 Student responses to the statement “The most difficult aspect of English for me is . . .” (up to two choices)

88

Toshiyuki Kanamaru and Daniel Roy Pearce

considered English grammar to be difficult, and the majority struggled with at least one of the productive skills (writing and speaking).

Methodology The 20 participants took a pre-test before being exposed to the Imijun application. Each participant was required to complete ten problems in which he or she would translate a target sentence from Japanese into English (see Appendix for the pre-test content). After completing the pre-test, the participants were given a five-minute demonstration on the operation of the application, conducted by one of the chapter authors. Following the presentation, the participants were instructed to experiment freely with the application, although it was recommended that they follow the prescribed order of problems (seven chapters targeting specific grammatical structures, followed by seven chapters of contextualized problems). It may be important to note that while all of the participants reported having previous experience with the Apple iPad®,2 none of the participants had previously received instruction on MAP Grammar. After 20 minutes of free experimentation with the application, the participants were once again required to complete a test of ten translation problems. The grammatical structures present in this test were identical (although presented in a different order) to the pre-test, with only the vocabulary used in each test being slightly different (see Appendix for the post-test content).

Results The pre- and post-tests were evaluated by two native-speaking teachers of English (both Canadian natives, both of whom have extensive teaching experience at universities in Japan). Each item was assigned a maximum value of 10 points, with 0 points given for questions left blank. Any sort of attempted answer was awarded at least 1 point, even if the answer was unintelligible. As the focus of the test was grammar and comprehensibility, the raters were instructed not to remove points for misspelt words, but rather to focus on grammatical errors. The raters evaluated the tests at different times and locations, and were not made aware of the purpose of the tests, nor that the pre- and post-tests had been undertaken by the same group of students. Table 7.1 displays the results.

Table 7.1 Results of the pre- and post-tests

Rater A Rater B

Mean

SD

t

df

p

1.950 1.920

1.061 0.957

8.233 8.975

19 19

0.000*** 0.000***

Note: N = 20, *p < 0.001.

MAP Grammar and ICT applications

89

Table 7.2 Mean scores on pre- and post-tests

Rater A, pre-test Rater B, pre-test Rater A, post-test Rather B, post-test

Mean

SD

7.220 7.325 9.170 9.245

1.122 1.022 0.595 0.530

Interrater reliability was calculated at a high degree of reliability, (pre-test, α = 0.98; post-test, α = 0.99). While the interrater reliability seems unusually high here, this may be a result of the constrained nature of the correct answers (i.e., Japanese to English single-sentence translations) and that both raters scored the participants relatively high on the pre-test (see Table 7.2). The average score on the post-test was also remarkably high, both raters giving scores of over nine. (Note that while the total score for the test was 100 points, the figures in both Table 7.1 and Table 7.2 were calculated using individual participant’s average scores, thus the highest score possible was a 10.)

Learner responses The participants of the aforementioned pilot were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their impressions of the application after completing the post-test and their responses were as follows (Figures 7.7–7.10). The participants also made the following comments in response to an openended question about the application (translated from Japanese by the authors): “It was easy to use. Up until now, I only had a vague understanding of the meaning order (who/does/who/what/where/when), but now I feel it is important to remember it properly to make English sentences”. “The Japanese hint button was helpful, because I was able to make sentences without a dictionary, even if I didn’t know some of the words”. “I was able to understand English structure, which was helpful. I’d like to use the application again. If I can remember the order of English, it will help with my everyday classes”. “I think it is a good application that can be used in my spare time, even if I only have a little time”. “It was easy to understand where to place the words, and why they should be placed there”. “The puzzle-like design was easy to use”. “Both the Japanese hints and English hints were useful”. “I think this would be useful for junior high school or elementary students who don’t know much about English. I wish I had known about it in elementary school”. “I thought it was going to be more difficult, but it was very easy to use”.

Neither agree nor disagree 5% Somewhat agree 40% Strongly agree 55%

Figure 7.7 Student responses to the statement “studying with this application was effective”

Somewhat agree 25%

Strongly agree 75%

Figure 7.8 Student responses to the statement “this application was easy to use”

Neither agree nor disagree 10%

Strongly agree 30%

Somewhat agree 60%

Figure 7.9 Student responses to the statement “I would like to continue to use this application to study English”

MAP Grammar and ICT applications

91

Strongly agree 10%

Neither agree nor disagree 60%

Somewhat agree 30%

Figure 7.10 Student responses to the statement “using this application increased my motivation to study English”

In addition to the pilot study at a senior high school, the application was also trialed at an elementary school in Kyoto Prefecture in February 2017. Several groups of sixth grade elementary school students (around nine to ten years old) experimented with the application for around 15 minutes, under the supervision of the chapter authors and Professor Akira Tajino. Although no numerical data was collected, the students made some positive comments about the application, including: “It was easy to use”. “The puzzle design was easy to understand”. “If I didn’t know the English it would be difficult, but there were Japanese hints so it was easy to do”. “Sometimes the pieces wouldn’t fit in properly”. “I want to use it more”. As can be seen from the earlier comments and questionnaire data, learner responses to the application ware generally positive. Most of the high school students reported that they considered studying with the application to be effective, and all reported that it was easy to use. On the other hand, one of the elementary school students reported that sometimes the vocabulary would not fit into the slots properly (a slight issue with the pilot application in which the vocabulary pieces must be laid over the MAP Grammar boxes with relatively high precision). Ninety percent of the high school students expressed a desire to continue using the application. While only 40% of students responded that the application increased their motivation to study English, there were some positive comments about how the application may be easily used to study in the students’ spare time.

92

Toshiyuki Kanamaru and Daniel Roy Pearce

Uses and future directions for MAP Grammar applications Pedagogical applications Commercially available applications for the learning of foreign languages often tend to be designed as completed courses, and therefore may be somewhat difficult for teachers to introduce into their own curricula (see Levy, 2009). Given the nature of the MAP Grammar application reviewed here, and its singular objective of familiarizing users with the horizontal axis (see Chapter 1, this volume), it might be readily introduced into a classroom grammar curriculum. While this may yet be a difficult task, as the number of problems for each discrete grammatical item are severely limited (four to six translation tasks per grammar item), it may become a desirable option for teachers when later versions with more diverse content become available. A teacher may choose to implement the application as an in-class task (by requiring students to take a screenshot of completed chapters, for example), or as an extra activity or reward for students who have completed other class work. The teachers who employed the application in this chapter also reported the effect the application seemed to have on motivation (see Chapter 8, this volume, for more details). Students seemed eager to try more and more difficult problems within the application, and thus introduction of this type of task in the classroom may also help to motivate students’ learning. As an extra-curricular resource, the application might be installed on tablets available to learners at school libraries, or for homework practice.

Future developments While the MAP Grammar application discussed in this chapter is still in its developmental stage, reactions from both teachers and students show that it has a promising future. Upcoming versions of the application might benefit from not only an increase in the number of problems for the user to solve, but also the addition of audio to expose learners to aural input. Another avenue to explore may be the introduction of an algorithm to check the grammatical validity of user-made sentences, rather than relying solely on translation problems. The addition of illustrations may also assist users in retaining the target sentences. Nevertheless, even with the application in its current state, it would seem that MAP Grammar has a bright future in ICT applications.

Acknowledgements This project was made possible by the Japan Science and Technology Agency. We would also like to thank the supervisor of the project, Professor Shogo Nakagawa. Special thanks also go to Professor Akira Tajino for developing the MAP Grammar methodology, NHK Publishing Inc. for allowing the use of published

MAP Grammar and ICT applications

93

materials in the application and the assistance of Fukuoka University, Gifu University and Kyoto University.

Notes 1 The development of the application introduced in this chapter was funded by a grant from the Japan Science and Technology Agency Matching Planner Program in 2016 with the project name Imijun mesodo wo mochiita eigo gakushu apurikeshon no kaihatsu (development of a study application incorporating the Imijun method) and under the supervision of Professor Shogo Nakagawa. 2 In fact, the author leading the instruction of the application found the students to be very proficient with the technology. He was amused to find that while during the short process of handing out the tablets, one of the students managed to take a ‘selfie’ and set the photo as a desktop background image.

References Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching & researching: Computer-assisted language learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Berson, I., Berson, M., & McGlinn Manfra, M. (2012). Touch, type, and transform: iPads in the social studies classroom. Social Education, 76(2), 88–91. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741– 753. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 74–101. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991. tb01085.x Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 720–740. doi:10. 1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00969.x Geer, R., White, B., Zeegers, Y., Au, W., & Barnes, A. (2017). Emerging pedagogies for the use of iPads in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 490–498. doi:10.1111/bjet.12381 Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2012.700315 Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 769–782. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2013). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computerassisted language learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tajino, A. (2014). Chugakko eigo kanzen masuta Imijun kakikomi renshucho [Mastering junior high school Imijun writing practice workbook]. Tokyo: NHK Publishing Inc.

Appendix

Pre-test content (translated from Japanese to English). Model English answers have been provided here. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I have a (younger) brother. You must do your homework. Kate is swimming in the river now. My (younger sister) went to Nara three days ago. I will put this book on the table.

Questions 6–10 are all about ‘Tom’ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

He likes music. He plays soccer in the park every day. He teaches me Chinese every Saturday. He is reading a book in his room. He plans to go to Osaka next month.

Post-test content (also translated from Japanese to English). Model English answers have been provided here. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

My (older) brother went to Tokyo two days ago. I have a (an older) sister. John is playing baseball in the park. I will put that book in this bag. You must read this book.

Questions 6–10 are all about ‘Tom’ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

He likes music. He plays soccer in the park every day. He teaches me Chinese every Saturday. He is reading a book in his room. He plans to go to Osaka next month.

8

MAP Grammar and motivation David Dalsky, Ryan W. Smithers and Yoshinari Sasaki

“I think I can. I think I can. I think I can”. These words from the Little Engine that Could would demonstrate an ideal attitude and spirit if they were embodied by both students and teachers (Smithers, 2014). Indeed, motivation not only leads learners forward but also enables learners to climb those seemingly insurmountable hills, much like the ‘Little Engine that Could’. In other words, motivation is the railway that keeps learners on track so that they can continue moving, always moving closer and closer toward the goal. The best students, teachers and curricula in the world will not make the journey any smoother if there is not a strong path to travel on to compensate for any deficits in language aptitude and learning conditions (Dörnyei, 2005). What is paramount during language teaching and learning is the way in which language learning attitudes influence learning behavior, so that the long-term motivation needed for L2 or foreign language mastery can be facilitated (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). On track with the motivation to learn ESL, we shall move on to discuss a way in which grammar is taught and learnt from a pedagogical perspective in this respect. For example, consider grammar as a pedagogical train. How would it look? How would it teach? How would it proceed? Imagine a train whose boxcars represent the Order of Meanings (i.e., Who, Does(Is), Who(m)/What(How), Where, When). This train may move with more questions than answers with respect to self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Some of the most puzzling questions of any EFL or ESL teacher may be, “How can I motivate my students to learn grammar?” and “How can I motivate myself to teach grammar?” These are questions with no easy answers, and this is perhaps one of the reasons why motivation is seen as a crucial component of a language learner’s success (Brown, 2007). No one would question the instrumental role that motivation plays in the teaching and learning of grammar and its use for both students and teachers. What must be carefully considered, however, would be the type of motivation and the type of grammar in question. This chapter argues that intrinsic motivation may provide the railway that allows the train of MAP Grammar, a type of PG ‘by and for the practitioners’ (see the introduction, this volume), to speed along. In order for classroom practitioners to gain a deeper understanding of classroom life, this chapter also argues that it would be essential to consider intrinsic motivation and grammar teaching/learning in a relational, dynamic system, rather than an

96

David Dalsky, Ryan W. Smithers and Yoshinari Sasaki

independent, static and systematic vacuum. Indeed, English learning and teaching with MAP Grammar provides an ideal grammar system to investigate intrinsic motivation and related issues of self-efficacy for at least two reasons. First, metalanguage, including grammatical jargon, does not interfere with intuition. Second, there is only one Order of Meanings to learn rather than five or seven sentence patterns. Beginning with a consideration for motivation applied to foreign language learning and teaching, this chapter provides evidence from teachers’ voices ranging from novice to experienced, and students’ voices ranging from high school to advanced aged related to MAP Grammar. The voices suggest that MAP Grammar is linked to self-efficacy and the intrinsic motivation to not only learn grammar through MAP Grammar but also to be able to ‘connect the grammatical dots’ for communicative purposes and become reinforced by the intrinsic rewards provided by MAP Grammar to learn (or teach) English.

Motivation and foreign language learning and teaching Teachers need to help learners become effective at learning because effective learners are the ones who are cognitively and affectively involved in learning a foreign or L2. According to Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, p. 58), there is an “intimate connection between the affective component of motivation (willingness) and the metacognitive component of knowledge and skills (ability) for learning”. Moreover, how a student views his or her abilities, possibilities, potentials, limitations, and past performance, as well as various aspects of tasks to achieve or goals to attain is a crucial aspect of motivation (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 74). Unfortunately, for learners and teachers, overcoming language learning challenges, like scaling mountains, is not something that happens haphazardly. It requires that learners be highly motivated and have their engines fueled by a sense of self-efficacy (a strong belief that they can and will succeed), which will allow them to take the required steps to see that they achieve their goals (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, it should be the goal of teachers to make motivation an outcome of education, which stresses the importance of creating positive interaction between factors that can facilitate motivated learning in the language classroom. Williams and Burden (1997, pp. 138–140) identified 13 factors that they claim can influence motivation. Of these factors, nine are internal, and four are external. Among the internal factors, six are germane to our thesis. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Intrinsic interest of activity: posits that tasks need to not only arouse the curiosity of learners, but also be not too easy nor too difficult. Perceived value of activity: attributes importance to how relevant and valuable learners perceive tasks to be. Sense of agency: important in that learners need to believe that success was achieved because of deliberate effort and ability, not chance. Mastery concerns self-efficacy: the belief that a learner is competent enough to complete a task.

MAP Grammar and motivation 5.

6.

97

Self-concept: being able to hear one’s inner voice say, “I think I can. I think I can. I think I can”. And the belief that you are endowed with what it takes to succeed. Attitudes: concerned with the overall feelings learners have for the language being learned and the people and culture associated with it.

Besides the earlier factors, in general, the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation have greatly influenced our understanding of L2 motivation today. “Intrinsically motivated activities are ones for which there is no apparent reward except the activity itself [ . . . ] and behaviors are aimed at bringing about certain internally rewarding consequences, namely, feelings of competence and selfdetermination” (Deci, 1975, p. 23). That is, learners engage in learning for a sense of self-satisfaction. Intrinsic motivation is contrasted with extrinsic motivation insofar as “extrinsic motivation is fueled by the anticipation of a reward from outside and beyond the self. Behaviors initiated solely to avoid punishment are also extrinsically motivated” (Brown, 2007, p. 172). Noels, Pelletier, Clément, and Vallerand (2000) concluded that the greatest achievements in L2 learning are found in learners that are more intrinsically motivated.

The ‘play’ in MAP grammar: Teachers’ voices MAP Grammar provides a sort of ‘road map’ of English grammar, one in which the components of grammar are interrelated and loosely structured so that learners and teachers would have ‘play’ in the steering wheel as they drive from one point to the next on the communicative street (Tajino, personal communication, December 11, 2016). It is also a dynamic grammatical system, one in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, the primary purpose is for communicating, rather than using difficult metalinguistic terms, and certainly not for systematically memorizing five or seven grammatical sentence patterns or grammatical units. This is a learning strategy that would interfere with the communicative purpose of MAP Grammar’s nature (see Chapter 1, this volume). Having referenced the aforementioned, what are the implications for learner and teacher motivation of MAP Grammar? Beginning with ‘play’ would be a suitable place to start. Quite simply, the dynamic systemic nature of MAP Grammar makes learning and teaching grammar enjoyable. Teachers can literally play with grammar. For instance, consider the teacher who uses objects in the classroom as learning tools – whose functions represent particular semantic roles in the Order of Meanings (see Chapter 21, this volume): This is the beauty of how MAP Grammar motivates learners: it acts as an easily accessible tool kit to unpack language at many different levels and makes understanding of each one readily available. This was only our third class and already the learners had internalized the MAP pattern and were applying it to their language studies. They were using MAP Grammar to understand the structure of the text, to identify key sentences, to discuss grammatical aspects and highlight

98

David Dalsky, Ryan W. Smithers and Yoshinari Sasaki how certain forms are operationalized as well as gain a better understanding of the content. “I see”. Said one learner “The pattern shows he [the character in the story being analyzed] likes the ‘doing together’ most, and not so much the ‘place’”. Such quick insight into the language at so many levels brings confidence and motivates learners into questions about the topics for the next classes, and this makes the preparation and delivery of them, for me, all the more fun. (Gray, personal communication, May 14, 2017)

Next, consider the teacher who uses MAP Grammar worksheets to structure role plays between ‘interviewers’ and ‘celebrities’ (see Chapter 19, this volume): An implicit assumption of most ESL textbooks is that grammar teaching via metalanguage is an obligatory component of every English class. I have never been comfortable with this. In fact, during my formal schooling years I was never taught the application of grammar nor was I taught English through metalanguage, so when I had to teach my students grammar with metalanguage I found myself struggling. Fortunately, this all changes after being introduced to MAP Grammar. It is so simple to teach with and students are eager to learn grammar based on it. Another teacher (Sasaki) provides some insight into the high school classroom where MAP Grammar is used to teach writing: Current high school English language instruction in Japan utilizes three main question types to foster students’ writing skills: sentence rearrangement, Japanese-to-English translation, and free English composition. There is a focus on these question types in high school due to their usage in the English portion of Japanese university entrance examinations. In my experience, MAP Grammar is a useful tool especially when instructing students on how to solve sentence rearrangement and Japanese-to-English translation questions. When tackling sentence rearrangement questions, students form word groups before placing them in the MAP Grammar framework. This makes it easier for the students to process and has significantly decreased major errors. It is equally as useful to aid in Japanese-to-English translation questions. The Japanese language has characteristics that differ greatly from English. For example, Japanese has a different grammatical order and sometimes the subject of a sentence is completely omitted. The different linguistic characteristics leave a gap between the languages when translating. The use of MAP Grammar makes up for and fills this linguistic gap. Another problem that arises in Japanese-to-English translation questions is the necessity for students to turn complicated Japanese sentences into simpler ones before English translation. MAP Grammar enables students to identify important information to create simpler Japanese sentences. MAP Grammar has the potential to change current Japanese English language education from inputbased to output-based education.

MAP Grammar and motivation

99

In addition to these creative pedagogies, MAP Grammar can also be learned and taught through applications for digital tablets (see Chapter 7, this volume): We found that using the MAP Grammar app allowed us to be more conscientious about our teaching. As teachers, it is so easy to become patternized in the way you teach and this can even spill over into how you present new material in class, be it digital or otherwise. When using the MAP Grammar app, not only were we excited about using this medium to share what we found to be a revolutionary way of presenting grammar, but MAP Grammar elicited instant, positive feedback from students. Students were excited with the possibilities that the MAP framework presented. Students were so engrossed in learning that they all sought to explore the potential of the app and, more importantly, challenge their grammatical competence by autonomously attempting tasks slightly beyond their present level. Their enthusiasm to learn created a positive feedback loop; their energy and motivation raised our motivation and this help to create a more energetic atmosphere in the classroom. (Pearce, personal communication, May 18, 2017)

MAP Grammar and intrinsic rewards: Students’ voices Beyond being a source of ‘play’ in the classroom, MAP Grammar can handle a variety of classroom circumstances and learner characteristics, making learning and teaching intrinsically rewarding because it is intuitive and parsimonious. The fact that MAP Grammar has these features and that they are to some extent related to intrinsic motivation is corroborated by Japanese university students’ reflections as well as older Japanese adult learners on their experience with MAP Grammar (Imijun in Japanese) in classrooms. Voices from these students are presented in this section (translated from Japanese). To begin with, the intuitive nature of the order of semantic roles makes learning and teaching the Order of Meanings straightforward. There are no technical terms to learn and use, so MAP Grammar can be applied with ease and even enjoyment. Once accustomed to it, students can become more confident and reap intrinsic rewards. To be sure, consider the following comments from students: It is more fun than studying “grammar.” (University Student A) I have been poor at the structure of English sentences, but because of Imijun, I now feel that I can overcome my weakness. (University Student B) I feel so much better now because I know an easier way to make sentences than the way that I have learnt in junior and senior high school. (University Student C)

100

David Dalsky, Ryan W. Smithers and Yoshinari Sasaki Because of Imijun I can understand the present perfect tense easily. (Older Adult Learner A) I used to think writing English sentences was so difficult, but now, thanks to Imijun, I believe I can write much easier than before. (University Student D)

The quote from University Student C implies that students and teachers of English typically systematically consider a complex array of grammatical structures such as the present tense first, then the past tense, and then the present perfect tense, etc. Indeed, these grammatical items, which are arranged in a seemingly willy-nilly fashioned, are likely experienced as a hodgepodge, especially for learners. Map Grammar, on the other hand, only requires the learner and teacher to be concerned with one single parsimonious clause structure: the Order of Meanings. What’s more, because of its systematic nature, it is easy to find the relationships among grammatical items with MAP Grammar and make fewer mistakes in English sentence construction: All that is necessary is to remember the Order of Meanings. The choice of how to use MAP Grammar depends entirely on the teacher and learner according to classroom circumstances and personal characteristics. The following students’ experiences with MAP Grammar provides some insights and perspectives into these features, especially how they may relate to intrinsic motivation in terms of changing learners’ attitudes, beliefs and emotional states: I thought even a complicated sentence could be applied to Imijun. (Older Adult Learner B) This was useful for my brain to arrange my English learning. (Older Adult Learner C) By using Imijun, my grammar mistakes reduced. (University Student E) I am much more relaxed now when making English sentences because I don’t need to spend so much time thinking about how to construct a sentence. (University Student F) I am so relieved to know how to make sentences based on the Order of Meanings. (University Student G) I realize that I can now translate from Japanese into English with much less difficulty. I now have a much more positive outlook on studying English. (University Student H)

MAP Grammar and motivation

101

Reflections and concluding remarks The motivation of teachers and learners comes from contextual, as well as internal and external factors that, when working in concert, can result in an integrated system of specialized vehicles and dedicated tracks that allow us to move from point ‘A’ to ‘B’ in the shortest possible time. In fact, thanks to advances in research and pedagogies, we now have MAP Grammar that can take students to destinations in ways that were not possible in the past. As discussed earlier, students of varying ages, proficiencies, and learning contexts found MAP Grammar to be intrinsically interesting and valuable for achieving their language learning goals. Further to this, their voices told of how their self-concepts and self-efficacies were strengthened and attitudes to learning grammar were improved. That is, MAP Grammar motivates students. Comparatively, the teachers from this study spoke of how their teaching methodologies were positively influenced by MAP Grammar. Their voices echoed sentiments similar to the students’ voices earlier in regard to how they are remotivated to teach grammar. In addition, their voices corroborated what students seemed to be experiencing: a renewed passion for learning, fueled by MAP Grammar. As motivation contributes to success in learning a foreign or L2, it becomes paramount that teachers do everything they can to help bolster motivation. Grammar is not typically an enjoyable part of teaching and learning the English language for most teachers and students. When pedagogy is considered with grammar, however, a motivational spark seems to ignite a flame in the teaching/ learning process. This chapter has shown some flickers of the light from this flame from both teachers and students resulting from the use of a new type of PG, which are like torches in a tunnel for the metaphorical train. If you were to take a ride on this train, how far would you go?

Acknowledgements Many of descriptions of PG in this chapter, especially MAP Grammar, are the result of inspirational and enlightening discussions with Professor Akira Tajino.

References Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley: Newbury House.

102

David Dalsky, Ryan W. Smithers and Yoshinari Sasaki

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57–85. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00111 Smithers, R. W. (2014). The ebb and flow of a language learner’s motivational profile: A quasi- longitudinal study. In L. Yoffe & H. Obari (Eds.), Proceedings of the JACET 2013 summer seminar (Vol. 12, pp. 26–31). Tokyo: JACET. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9

MAP Grammar and instructional design Sachi Takahashi, Daniel Roy Pearce and David Dalsky

This chapter discusses how Instructional Design may form the basis of MAP Grammar. Instructional Design (hereafter ID) has been defined as “the systematic and reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials, activities, information resources, and evaluation” (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 4). It takes into account contemporary research on thought and learning processes, as well as innovative technologies for communication and methods of analysis. Using this knowledge as a starting point, ID seeks to create environments and situations in which effective learning is expected to take place. Before delving into the perspectives of ID, let us first clarify the term instruction. Gagné, Briggs, and Wager (1992) define instruction as follows: Instruction is a set of events that affect learners in such a way that learning is facilitated. Normally, we think of these events as being external to the learner – events embodied in the display of printed paged or the talk of a teacher. However, we also must recognize that events that make up instruction may be partly internal when they constitute the learner activity called “self-instruction”.(p. 3) The partly internal events referred to here may include such events as learners’ noticing, conducting rehearsals or reflection upon their work, as well as tracking their own progress. As such, and in accordance with the principles of instruction as outlined in the quotation earlier, ID refers not to the process of teaching, but rather focuses on the broader process of supporting learning. Also, as the name suggests, ID focuses specifically on intentional learning as opposed to incidental learning (see Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005). In other words, ID asserts the necessity of learner activities and learning materials that have been designed and developed for both meaningful and desirable learning outcomes.

Principles of learning In this section, three principles from the theory of learning that have particular relevance to ID will be introduced: contiguity, repetition and reinforcement.

104

Sachi Takahashi, Daniel Roy Pearce and David Dalsky

The principle of contiguity states that a desired response must be presented concurrently with a stimulus situation (Guthrie, 1938). Take, for example, a learning situation in which the objective is to put together a machine. It may help the learners to refer to a plan or set of instructions when putting the machine together. However, the final objective here, in other words, the stimulus, is the machine actually being put together. As such, while a set of instructions may be an aid to the learners, it must eventually be discarded (in the completion of the machine) in order to establish contiguity between stimulus and response. The principle of repetition states that, as the name might imply, the repetition of stimulus and response (or in other words, practice) improves learning outcomes and supports learning in a reliable manner. However, more recent arguments in the theory of learning (for example, Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978; Gagné, 1985) cast doubt on the notion that repetition is effective as a result of strengthening learned connections, and that it may not improve learning outcomes. It might be the case, however, that repetition supports other factors necessary for successful learning. The principle of reinforcement states that learning is strengthened when the performance of a learned act brings about a satisfying situation or circumstance (Thorndike, 1913). Until recently, the ‘satisfaction’ reinforcement has often been discussed as involving learners obtaining higher grades, or receiving rewards – in other words, external factors. However, a broader understanding of the satisfaction that reinforces learning should encompass internal factors in the learner as well – that is, the feeling of accomplishment a learner has when he or shes complete a task, and the development of confidence that may result. Such internalized reinforcement may lead to increased motivation and/or autonomy in learners (see Chapter 8, this volume), which further strengthens the learning process.

MAP Grammar and the three learning principles This section will discuss the relationship between the three principles of learning outlined earlier, and how they relate to MAP Grammar. Firstly, regarding contiguity, take for example the following learning objective: to understand and be able to manipulate English grammar so as to be able to convey one’s opinion in spoken English. For this objective, MAP Grammar may fulfill the role of the ‘set of instructions’ described in the example earlier. The teacher may first use the MAP Grammar framework to present a set of example sentences to her learners, and through this have them understand the grammatical structure. As Tajino outlined in Chapter 1 in this volume, MAP Grammar readily fulfills the role of such a set of instructions (or ‘map’). As for repetition, through inserting the necessary words or phrases into the MAP Grammar boxes, a learner may produce English sentences with relative ease. Through repetition of this process, as can be seen in the examples shown in Chapter 15, learners may internalize the MAP Grammar framework,

MAP Grammar and instructional design

105

and apply it to the production of a variety of different English sentences (for example, sentences with longer NPs, that also follow their own Order of Meanings within the ‘who’ box, or developing sentences with long relative pronoun clauses, employing the hierarchical structure of English grammar as explained in Chapter 1). Finally, regarding reinforcement, through the appropriate inserting of words and phrases into the MAP Grammar boxes, global errors may be easily avoided, and thus even learners who are not proficient with English may produce English sentences with little difficulty (even if they include some local errors), instilling confidence in the learner. Refer to Chapter 8 in this volume for relevant voices from learners.

MAP Grammar and the nine events of instruction Gagné (1985) outlines nine external events of instruction as shown in Figure 9.1. These events, while external, are intimately related to internal processes that occur within the learner during learning. Gagné suggests that developing instruction with these nine events at the center promotes a smoother facilitation

Events

Purposes

(1) gaining the learners’ attention

Having learners prepare for a lesson, making learners aware of the lesson aims and the lesson’s relevance to the learners.

(2) informing learners of the objective

Making clear the expected learning outcomes.

(3) stimulating recall of prior learning

Making connections between already learned knowledge/skills, and what is to come next.

(4) presenting the stimulus

Presenting the new knowledge/skills to be acquired.

(5) providing guidance for the learners

Providing support/facilitation to learners in order to achieve learning of the knowledge presented in Event (4).

(6) eliciting learner performance

Eliciting responses from learners, and providing opportunities for practice.

(7) providing feedback

Making corrections where necessary, and providing feedback to learners.

(8) assessing learners’ performance

Confirming that the new knowledge/skills have been acquired.

(9) enhancing retention and transfer

Reinforcing learned content through providing opportunities for periodic review and practice. Also includes applying learned knowledge/skills to new contexts.

Figure 9.1 The nine events of instruction, adapted from Gagné (1985)

106

Sachi Takahashi, Daniel Roy Pearce and David Dalsky

of the internal processes involved in learning. These nine external events are thus considered to be a basic framework for the development of teaching materials and of learning activities. More competent learners are often able to employ their own learning strategies in order to realize these events themselves, and thus a teacher does not necessarily need to actively construct all of the nine events for their learners, although it is clear that they do promote successful learning. Gagné et al. (2005) describe instruction as a planned arrangement of these external events, with a clear purpose, that facilities the learning process. These nine external events, therefore, have a significant role in successful instruction. In this section, we will examine how MAP Grammar fits into the framework for instruction as outlined by the nine events in the figure noted earlier. A key element of MAP Grammar is its visualization of English grammar, with the Order of Meanings on a horizontal axis, and discrete grammatical items on the vertical axis (see Figure 9.2). This visualization allows for the smooth realization of events (1) gaining the learners’ attention, and (2) informing learners of the objective. This visualization also helps students to draw connections between various discrete grammatical items, and in this sense, facilities the association of previously learned content, with the production of, for example, a variety of unique English sentences. This association with previously learned content may fulfil the conditions of event (3), stimulating recall of prior learning. As an example, beginning learners that have been exposed to the ‘Who’ and ‘Does(Is)’ boxes may, through the recall of this learned knowledge, predict that other boxes (i.e., Who(m)/What(How), Where, When) will follow, and gradually become able to apply these principles in the production of longer and more complex English sentences. Now let us consider MAP Grammar in relation to events (4) and (5). Event (4), presenting the stimulus, is conventionally realized through the introduction of new learning content (stimuli) through either lectures or teaching materials. In lessons incorporating MAP Grammar, event (4) may also be conducted in such a conventional way, preferably with material that provokes interest in the learners. As event (5), providing guidance for the learners, intimates, guidance to assist in the acquisition of new content is necessary. Such guidance may be conducted through examples or explanations, or through discussions – and MAP Grammar’s visualization facilitates such guidance, as can be seen in Figure 9.3, in which tense can be instructed parallel to the ‘When’ box in a visual manner that could be readily understood by learners. Event (6), eliciting learner performance, refers to the elicitation of a context-appropriate response by having the learners draw upon previously acquired knowledge or freshly learned content. As has been touched upon in Chapter 2 and Chapter 13 in this volume, MAP Grammar is uniquely suited to productive activities. Thus, as learners conform to the MAP Grammar framework, they may readily produce sentences (performance) that have either no global errors or become able to identify unclear or unintelligible constructions.

DOES(IS)

WHO

preposition

WHERE

WHO(M)/WHAT (HOW)

adverb

gerund

to-infinitive

The Order of Meanings (Horizontal axis)

subjunctive

gerund

auxiliary verb

to-infinitive

subordinate clause

perfect aspect

pronoun

conjunction

noun

progressive aspect

noun pronoun

adjective

tense

adjective

article

verb

article

Figure 9.2 An image of MAP Grammar, reproduced from Figure 1.5, Chapter 1

Grammatical items (Vertical axis)

WHEN

preposition

adverb

108

Sachi Takahashi, Daniel Roy Pearce and David Dalsky

WHO

DOES(IS)

WHO(M)/WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

(present) live

now

(past) lived

ten years ago

(future) am going to live

next year

(present) read

every night

(present progressive) am reading

now

(present perfect progressive) have been reading

since this morning

(present perfect) have read

three times

Figure 9.3 Instruction of tense, reproduced from Figure 1.9, Chapter 1

With regards to event (7), providing feedback, and event (8), assessing learners’ performance, a teacher may wish to refer to the MAP Grammar structure in students’ notebooks, for example, to provide feedback or assess performance (see Figure 9.4, for such an example). A learner may make errors in which ‘box’ they have entered a word or phrase, and the teacher can readily correct this. With MAP Grammar, a teacher may avoid minute detailed explanations, and focus feedback toward the understanding of English sentence structures. The MAP framework allows a teacher to almost instantly see whether a learner is accurately producing sentences and allows for easy correction of global errors. With regards to event (8), assessing performance refers not only to the moments (hours, or days) following instruction but also assessing whether a learner has retained knowledge or skills after a certain amount of time has passed. Thus, event (9), enhancing retention and transfer, is also necessary. As one of the touted aspects of MAP Grammar is its avoidance of complicated (or metalinguistic term-heavy) grammatical explanations, the framework also provides learners with an accessible frame of reference through which to re-evaluate (i.e., reflect upon) their previous work. Not only does this framework allow for relatively painless reflection but also acquisition of the framework facilities transfer of learned English structures into the construction of unique English sentences (or utterances). This is one of the benefits of providing the ‘whole picture’ of English grammar as discussed in Chapter 1, and one of the greatest advantages to incorporating MAP Grammar into instruction.

MAP Grammar and instructional design

109

Figure 9.4 An example of teacher feedback with MAP Grammar (learner errors adapted from Sasaki (2011))

This section has discussed Gagné’s (1985) nine events of instruction (external events) and how MAP Grammar may be an effective tool for implementing these events for effective instruction.

The potentials of MAP Grammar for course development In this section, we will discuss, from the perspectives of ID, the potential effectiveness of the MAP Grammar framework in course design and materials development. The most fundamental course design model in ID includes the following five phases: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate, and is known as the ADDIE model (Branson et al., 1975; Dick & Carey, 1996; Kemp, Morrison, & Ross, 1994). The remainder of this section will focus on this model.

The ‘analyze’ phase In the Analyze phase, after learner needs and situational factors have been identified, a clear objective for learning (in terms of what skills or knowledge are to be imparted on the learners) is outlined through instructional analysis. An important outcome of instructional analysis is the categorization of tasks. Task categorization refers to organizing learning outcomes into types and subcategories, and is a

110

Sachi Takahashi, Daniel Roy Pearce and David Dalsky

necessary step to avoid the overlooking of necessary learning objectives in course development. The Analyze phases is concluded with the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills required for the course. As has been stated in previous sections (and chapters), a unique feature of MAP Grammar is that it provides the ‘big picture’ of what needs to be learned, allowing for the organization of items to be learned next, allowing for the development of systemic instruction not only within a course but also across several courses.

The ‘design’ phase In the Design phase, the major units of a course, their objectives, and desired outcomes are determined, as well as the time to be allotted for each unit. Each individual unit or lesson is then ‘dismantled’ and a task inventory developed (see Figure 9.5). Furthermore, in order to realize the nine events (and therefore facilitate the learning process), concrete learning activities and the materials needed to carry them out, are designed and documented. As stated in the previous section, as MAP Grammar fulfills the majority of the criteria of the nine events, these characteristics are also beneficial in class design. As for the content of the units themselves, the ARCS motivation model (Keller, 1979, 1983; Suzuki, 2002) is useful for improving the appeal of individual classes or materials. In the ARCS model, A refers to Attention, specifically drawing the attention of learners. R refers to Relevance, or the importance of learners feeling that what they are studying is relevant to their own futures. C represents Confidence, the need to instill a sense of confidence in learners through achievement. Finally, S denotes Satisfaction, inspiring a sense of satisfaction in the content learned. Keller (1979) suggests that classes or materials that cover these four factors are effective in evocating a desire to learn.

Instructional Goals

Objectives

Objectives

Objectives

Objectives

Objectives

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Task

Figure 9.5 An example of a task inventory

MAP Grammar and instructional design

Factors

Sub elements

Attention

A-1: Perceptual Arousal A-2: Inquiry Arousal A-3: Variability

Relevance

R-1: Familiarity R-2: Goal Orientation R-3: Motive Matching

Confidence

C-1: Learning Requirement C-2: Success Opportunities C-3: Personal Control

Satisfaction

S-1: Natural Consequences S-2: Positive Consequences S-3: Equity

111

Figure 9.6 Keller’s ARCS motivation model (Adapted from Keller (1979))

Here examples will be drawn upon to show how the conditions of the ARCS model might be fulfilled with the use of MAP Grammar: 1.

2.

Attention: In terms of sub-element A-1 (perceptual arousal), the visual representation of MAP Grammar (as shown in Figure 9.2), is already more stimulating than the usual representation of grammar items in plain text. Applying the meaning boxes to a blackboard at the front of the class (see for example, Figure 18.5 in Chapter 18), may be useful in drawing learner attention. For beginning learners, the name ‘MAP Grammar’ itself might inspire curiosity as to what it is. As for A-2 (inquiry arousal), learners might approach MAP Grammar tasks as a sort of ‘game’, imagining what word might go into the next ‘box’, or guessing into what box a particular word should go. Finally, for A-3 (variability), through implementation of a visualized representation of English grammar, reliance on long-winded grammatical explanations is reduced, allowing for more variance in tasks and potentially reducing boredom amongst learners. Relevance: For sub-element R-1 (familiarity), introducing English sentences with the MAP visualization or alongside illustrations (see, for example, Figure 18.2 in Chapter 18) may provide learners with a more concrete idea of the grammar, and how it fits in to what has previously been learning. As for R-2 (goal orientation), here again, the ‘big picture’ provided by MAP Grammar becomes relevant, allowing learners to grasp what structures they have learnt, and what they havenot yet, potentially inspiring attempts to take on more difficult structures (see also teachers’ voices in Chapter 8). This also plays a part in R-3 (motive matching) in that it allows the teacher to quickly grasp what level

112

3.

4.

Sachi Takahashi, Daniel Roy Pearce and David Dalsky their learners are at, and thus provide problems, tasks, or further instruction at an appropriate level of difficulty. Confidence: In order to satisfy the sub-element C-1 (learning requirement), learning objectives must be made clear, and learners must be made aware of where or on what they should concentrate their efforts. The ‘big picture’ also carries over into C-1, by providing an easy means to clarify learning objectives, where they ‘fit’ in with each other, and for the learner might be an aid to noticing the gap between what they know and what they are to learn. MAP Grammar also allows plentiful opportunities to fulfill C-2 (success opportunities), by for example, having learners move on to the ‘When’ box after successfully mastering the ‘Where’, or employing two levels of the MAP framework to construction longer sentences, or connect sentences with conjunctions. Accomplishing these small objectives might increase opportunities for learners to have a small taste of success. C-3 (personal control) can be facilitated to a degree through self-study. If a learner is unable to understand more difficult grammar explanation, they may review (or study beforehand) by attempting to apply example sentences to the MAP framework themselves (in this way, as discussed next, flipped teaching may also be facilitated in the Implement phase). As Tajino discusses in Chapter 1, and touches upon again in the epilogue, teachers and learners have a degree of freedom with MAP Grammar, particularly in regard to which box the place certain types of words and phrases into, and should choose which suits themselves best, in other words, MAP Grammar itself supports personal control in learning. Satisfaction: As for S-1 (natural consequences) and S-2 (positive consequences), these may be achieved through the avoidance of global errors, a natural result of understanding the MAP Grammar framework, or by applying learned knowledge toward understanding the ‘next step’ in learning. Concrete examples of such are explored in more detail in Part 3 of this volume. Finally, sub-element S-3 (equity) may be achieved through appropriate evaluation of learners’ productions, thus avoiding unfairness in evaluation by, for example, focusing evaluation on sentence structure rather than small inconsistencies (as discussed in ‘assessing learners’ performance’ in the nine events section earlier).

We have shown here how MAP Grammar may help in fulfilling the necessary elements of the ARCS model to develop classes and activities that are of interesting and, therefore, motivating to learners. Of course, as for the actual process of instruction, some degree of ingenuity on the teacher’s behalf is required, which is part of the Design phase into which ARCS falls.

The ‘develop’ phase Let us return to the ADDIE model and move on to the third phase, Develop. This phase entails the creation of tasks and materials to be implemented in a

MAP Grammar and instructional design

113

specific learning environment. In (particularly) Part 3 of this volume, practice reports and lesson plans using the MAP Grammar framework are introduced, and included in these chapters are real examples of task sheets and other materials. Such materials might be paper-based, such as those in Chapter 15, or digital materials, such as the application introduced in Chapter 7 of Part 2.

The ‘implement’ phase The role of the fourth phase, Implement,1 is to establish whether the management (conducting) of a class is being (or has been) carried out appropriately. As already mentioned in the Design phases, MAP Grammar fulfills the conditions of the ‘nine events’ and is a viable framework for facilitating the learning process. Recently, educational strategies such as flipped teaching (or flipped learning, flipped classroom, backwards classroom, etc., see Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Mazur, 1997) have been gaining attention. In flipped teaching, learners study new content outside of the classroom before the class begins, perhaps with the use of video tutorials or e-learning materials. In the classroom itself, the teacher does not take the traditional role at the head of the class, but rather provides individual assistance to learners, or learners work cooperatively on tasks or presentations. With regards to grammar instruction, while traditionally there may have been an element of pre-study on the part of learners, the classroom is often dominated by teachers’ explanations (particularly in EFL contexts such as Japan). Through use of the MAP Grammar framework, however, students construction of English sentences is facilitated even outside of the classroom, and thus may prepare the necessary language beforehand (even if they might need to rely on their native language in preparing content first). In the classroom, the teacher may provide one-to-one guidance with the pre-prepared sentences, or the students themselves may engage in peer-feedback style activities. This is yet another way in which the MAP Grammar framework, which does not rely on metalinguistic explanations, may facilitate learning – as a tool to assist in learner self-study.

The ‘evaluate’ phase Finally, the Evaluate phase encompasses evaluation not only of learning outcomes in the learners themselves, but also the evaluation of the processes from the Analyze phase through to the Implement phase, and materials used. A well-known standard for evaluation in education is Kirkpatrick’s (1959) four-level learning evaluation model (Level 1 = Reaction, Level 2 = Learning, Level 3 = Behavior, Level 4 = Results). Reaction refers to the evaluation of learner satisfaction immediately after instruction. Learning is the evaluation of scholastic achievement through written tests, essays, etc. Behavior is the evaluation of changes in the behavior of learners, and Results refers to the effects of learning upon a school or group, or a community the learner belongs to, that have come about as a result of the learning process. The previous section detailed how MAP Grammar interacts with (7) providing feedback and (8) assessing learners’ performance (of the nine

114

Sachi Takahashi, Daniel Roy Pearce and David Dalsky

events), in terms of ease of feedback through visualization, and reduced global errors in output. A review of the chapters in Part 3 of this volume also seems to suggest that MAP Grammar may be beneficial in developing the areas of Reaction, Learning and Behavior. However, how evaluative measures such as CAF (complexity, accuracy and fluency) might reflect on MAP instruction, or how MAP instruction might contribute to Level 4 (Results) in Kirkpatrick’s model, are yet to be fully explored, and would be of interest for further research.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have reviewed some of the potential benefits of MAP Grammar in instruction from an ID viewpoint. While further study is necessary to determine how best MAP Grammar might be applied to the evaluation phases, it seems difficult to deny the appropriateness of MAP as a model to facilitate learning. Furthermore, little or no studies have yet considered grammar instruction and its place in course design from an ID perspectives. We expect that systematic course analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, in line with ID theory, and based on the MAP Grammar framework will contribute greatly to developments in grammar instruction.

Note 1 Here, ‘Implement’ refers to the moments of implementing courses and evaluations, as opposed to pilot tests or trial runs.

References Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F. J., & Hannum, W. H. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development (5 vols.) (TRADOC Pam 350–30 NAVEDTRA 106A). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, August 1975. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Guthrie, E. R. (1938). The psychology of human conflict: The clash of motives within the individual. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers. Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26–34.

MAP Grammar and instructional design

115

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383– 433). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1994). Designing effective instruction. New York: Merrill. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of American Society of Training Directors, 13(3), 21–26. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sasaki, Y. (2011, August). Chugakko eibumpo karikyuramu no saihensei: Nihongo to kotonaru gojun ya shushokukozo ni shotenkashite [Reconstructing the junior high school English grammar curriculum: A focus on modifier structure in languages with differing word orders to Japanese]. Paper presented at the JASELE 37th Conference, Yamagata, Japan. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Suzuki, K. (2002). Kyozai sekkei manyuaru [Instructional design manual]. Kyoto: Kitaoji-shobo. Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational psychology: The psychology of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

10 Visualizing MAP Grammar Utilizing visual aids to integrate the teaching of linguistic structure and content knowledge Tim Stewart In this volume, MAP Grammar is highlighted as being most effective at helping students make meaning in a second or foreign language. As Yanase (in this volume) explains, MAP Grammar breaks with traditional grammar frameworks because the purpose is for users to use language meaningfully (communicative), and is not intended merely as an analyst’s prescriptive list. The MAP Grammar outlined by Tajino (in this volume) is neatly plotted in a visual display of meaning units or WH-question words for users to access. This visual feature of MAP Grammar is the primary focus of this chapter. I concentrate on the power of ‘visual’ imagery in learning, which is a key feature of MAP Grammar, and relate it to learning foreign languages in school settings. I will demonstrate how displays of knowledge in visual form relate to discourse and systematically to grammar – that is, grammar for constructing meaning and communicating knowledge in school settings. My primary focus will be on using graphic text organizers to help L2 students read about, write about, and talk about academic topics in English. In some EFL contexts like Japan, as well as in ESL environments, English instructors are introducing more challenging content. But implementing this type of curriculum can be problematic. How can teachers integrate the development of academic discourse and the acquisition of content knowledge? This chapter focuses on this crucial question. The approach in this chapter finds its source in content-based language instruction (CBLI), or content and language integrated learning (CLIL). My argument is framed by knowledge structures common across curricula. Knowledge structures are schema that facilitate a mental process. They can be expressed in textual, as well as in graphic (visual) form. Crucially for this volume, knowledge structures are based on semantic relationships. Swain has pointed out, “If second language learning is more successful when learned in meaningful contexts, [. . .] we need to be doing a lot more fundamental planning about how to integrate language and content teaching” (1996, p. 544). This chapter takes up Swain’s challenge as it aims to demonstrate how teachers can approach the integrated teaching of content and language more systematically.

Visualizing MAP Grammar

117

Content-based language teaching Instead of organizing course instruction around grammatical or linguistic content, CBLI approaches L2 teaching with subject-area content at the core. The key point for this chapter is that instruction should be implemented so that students can learn language and content simultaneously. When teaching units and lessons, of course, the focus of instruction will shift back and forth between prioritizing language learning or content learning. In content-based models implemented as part of a subject-area course, normally the content drives the language learning. That is, language learning is related to “progression through the conceptual understanding of the content, rather than progression in grammatical awareness typified by learning present tense before past tense and so on” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 59). The theory behind this approach is that grammar learning should be based on the demands of the content students must learn in schools. Therefore, in contexts where L2 students study academic subjects, grammar is viewed as a resource for communicating information about content. According to Graddol (2006), there is a growing trend worldwide to use English as a medium of instruction. In Europe, the aim is to help all citizens become multilingual and the main teaching approach adopted is CLIL. The trend toward more instruction in English described by Graddol has accelerated the popularity of CLIL and this “has surprised even some of its most ardent advocates” (Maljers, Marsh, & Wolff, 2007, p. 7). A key objective of teachers adopting CBLI and CLIL pedagogical practices is making the subject-area content comprehensible to students (Lyster, 2011). MAP Grammar aligns with this aim because as a meaning-order approach to grammar pedagogy, it seeks to make grammar learning more systematic and the structure of grammar more transparent. I will focus on this need for transparency in grammatical instruction by emphasizing the use of visuals to aid students learning content in a second or foreign language. Before engaging with my central focus on how meaning in visual form relates to meaning in discourse, I will briefly describe the concept of knowledge structures and position them within a pedagogical framework.

Knowledge structures and the knowledge framework Bernard Mohan has used concepts from language socialization to create an approach to systematically link language learning, content learning, and the development of cognitive skills that he calls the ‘Knowledge Framework’ (KF) (1986). Language socialization is an interpretive approach which seeks to understand the process through which individuals become competent members of society and what role language plays in the process (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, 1986b). This school of thought examines the process of socialization from two viewpoints: socialization through language and socialization in the use of language. Language is for communication, and language learning is interwoven with

118

Tim Stewart

learning content and culture. Language socialization looks at both sociocultural structures and processes (situation), and language. Or, from a systemic viewpoint, learning as a linguistic process (Halliday & Hasan, 1985). Systemic linguists and language socialization theorists believe that language should not be seen in isolation from its social context (Halliday, 1978; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986b). Systemic linguistics is based on a functional/cognitive model of language and systematically describes the relation between a discourse (text, or actual language use) and the situation in which it occurs. The linguistic interactions of humans are connected directly to activities and practices that language mediates. In the KF (see Figure 10.1) (Mohan, 1986), language is defined more broadly than the rules of sentence grammar to include the organization of discourse. Content is seen as being not only the message of a sentence, but also as the organization of information within disciplines (Mohan, 1991). With his view of learning as a linguistic process, Mohan, like Halliday, is seeking the development

What is it?

How does it work? Theoretical

Classification

How can I apply it?

Knowledge

Principles

Evaluation

classifying categorizing defining

explaining predicting generalizations interpreting data and drawing conclusions hypothesizing

evaluating judging criticizing justifying preference and personal opinions recommending

observing describing naming comparing contrasting spatial order

time relations sequencing spatially steps in process narration cycles

forming personal opinions making decisions

Description

Sequence Practical

Knowledge

Figure 10.1 Knowledge structures situated in the KF (Adapted from Mohan (1986))

Choice (decision making)

Visualizing MAP Grammar

119

of a linguistic theory of learning (Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Mohan, 1989). The KF is an attempt to reveal the relationship between the linguistic category of text structures and knowledge structures (schemata) (Mohan, 1989, 1991). Cognitive psychologists explain that people organize knowledge in chunks called schemas or knowledge structures. Knowledge structures are flexible and dynamic patterns of information organization. They help learners organize knowledge so as to understand, remember, and apply new information (Abelson & Black, 1986; Mohan, 1991). That is, when information fits into a learner’s existing schema, it is easier to understand, learn and retain. The KF is divided into two main sections: practical knowledge (or action situations), consisting of knowledge structures of description, sequence and choice (also called decision making), and theoretical knowledge (background knowledge), including knowledge structures of classification, principles and evaluation (Mohan, 1986, pp. 40–49, 53–96). These knowledge structures are thinking skills that are common across languages (Tang, 1992; Werner & Schoepfle, 1987). They are also common across content areas and visible when translated into rhetorical patterns in oral discourse and written text. Thus, Mohan believes that each situation and most subject areas include, though are not limited to, six major structures of knowledge. Knowledge structures in the KF are based on semantic rather than on sequential patterns of discourse. They “are abstract categories of the field of situation typically realized in discourse by logical meanings of the semantic system” (Mohan, 1989, pp. 103–104). In this way, the KF is related to the systemic categories of situation and discourse (Halliday, 1978, pp. 139–150). Language is understood through its context and context shapes the linguistic system. The contextual view of language relies on situations or activities as contexts for discourse. Both Mohan and Halliday use a systemic approach, but Mohan’s focus is on situation and action and on systematizing these for practical use in teaching, rather than specifically on linguistic units. The KF proposes that a typical situation contains an action situation and background knowledge (Mohan, 1986, pp. 42–43, 45–46). The KF is an attempt to provide a general model for the body of knowledge in any given activity and their relation to discourse. The division of the framework between practical knowledge on the top and theoretical knowledge on the bottom exists because learning an activity involves learning both theory and practice (see Figure 10.1). In his grammar, Halliday is concerned with the range of ‘meaning potential’ available to a speaker. Mohan is similarly concerned with this range of meaning through his organization of the structures of knowledge used by people to talk about an activity. For both Halliday and Mohan, the meaning potential is realized in the form of the language used in a text or what the speaker can say. While Mohan’s knowledge structures are related to genres, they are not defined according to the sequence or ordering of text. Rather, knowledge structures are based on the semantic relations underlying a text. Next, I will describe how teachers can use visual representations of knowledge structures to help students acquire knowledge of content and linguistic structure.

120

Tim Stewart

Visual representations of text: Making the structure of knowledge transparent In his framework, Mohan (1986) states that knowledge structures are found in writing, speaking, and graphic forms as well. In contexts where students are learning academic content in a L2, graphics are tools that teachers can use to make the knowledge structures underlying content information visible. Because visuals make the shape of the information transparent, students can transfer what they learn beyond the immediate lesson. The key thing that graphics supply pedagogically is context since they can be used and reused across the curriculum in any subject (Figure 10.2). There are common graphic types used to represent each knowledge structure (Figure 10.2). Tang’s (1997) study concludes that the use of graphics in a systematic way can support the concurrent development of subject knowledge and language ability. Tang argues that the six knowledge structures in the KF are common across cultures and surmises, “If these knowledge structures are common across languages, their graphic representations should be able to elicit students’ prior knowledge learned in their L1” (1993, p. 13). The validity of this claim hinges on the idea that knowledge is structured visually in ways that are universal. Just seeing visuals is not enough, however. Students need to be taught how to read them. That is, they need to actively engage with graphics and develop their academic graphic literacy. Therefore, teachers need to point

Classification

Principles

Evaluation

web tree table graph database

line graph tables venn diagram cycles

table grid rating chart

diagram map photograph drawings/plans table

action strip timeline flow chart cycle

flow chart decision tree

Description

Sequence

Figure 10.2 Visual representations of knowledge structures (Adapted from Mohan (1986))

Choice (decision making)

Visualizing MAP Grammar

121

out the linguistic signals of each knowledge structure to help students eventually identify any text they might encounter that reflects the particular knowledge structure (see Tang, 1993). Furthermore, the L1 of a student will determine how easily they might transfer their understanding of a knowledge structure in their L1 to L2 contexts. Obviously, reading graphics in various languages is not entirely the same. In a comparison of rhetorical structures in Chinese and English, Tang (1993) found areas where students had no formal schema available to retrieve: Therefore, whatever the language, background knowledge of the linguistic and cohesive devices of that language has to be built, and when ESL students learn content knowledge in a second language, linguistic and cohesive devices of the second language have to be learned anew. Knowledge structures and graphic representations of knowledge structures permit transfer from one language to another, but the new linguistic and cohesive devices have to be learned afresh and practised frequently by students. (pp. 42–43) Some examples of graphic representations of knowledge structures are shown in Figure 10.2. Expressed in the form of graphics, knowledge structures can be used by teachers not only to teach linguistic structure but also to systematically integrate language-content teaching and learning. With graphics being quite common across cultures, they seem like excellent pedagogical tools to bridge learning content in English for L2 students. And for lower-proficiency English learners in particular, MAP Grammar can act as a support beam guiding accuracy and fluency. Next, I will demonstrate graphic representations of content for each of the three parts (columns) of Mohan’s (1986) KF. Keep in mind that the role of visuals for L2 students in general education is to reduce the cognitive load as the amount of text is reduced. In addition to this, visuals lay out the shape of knowledge as they make the connections between concepts transparent. The role of the teacher is to point out these connections and then show students the linguistic structure that underlies the visual. Related to this, Mohan made an important distinction between the structure of knowledge and the process of thinking: “Classification is a knowledge structure; classifying is a thinking process. Classifying is the process of working with classification” (1986, p. 75). There are at least three primary applications of visuals in teaching language and content: 1) generative – to promote the understanding of linguistic structure, vocabulary and language production; 2) exploratory – to increase content/ conceptual understanding; and 3) evaluative – to assess language and content understanding. How can teachers implement these applications effectively? For the applications outlined next, please imagine a general education setting with a number of students who are not native-English speakers. The content-area is civics, or politics, specifically looking at forms of democracy (Great Britain and the United States).

122

Tim Stewart

What is it? Description and classification Generative application The first column on the left of the KF (see Figure 10.1) deals with the knowledge structures and language of description and classification. Teachers implementing the KF with new content material are likely to begin here in order to help students understand what they are studying as they build familiarity of concepts and vocabulary. The application at this stage is generative, with students describing the phenomena under study and classifying concepts. Figure 10.3 is a visual representation of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Space does not permit the inclusion of a figure for the British parliamentary system, but teachers could easily find or create one in order to compare and contrast the two systems. In contrast to the written discourse found in textbooks, the structure of knowledge is made more transparent in Figure 10.3, and it relates to specific grammatical structure. Instruction about linguistic structure appears to improve the rate of L2 acquisition. The question of how to integrate the teaching of grammar with content information has been labeled “the central dilemma” of language teaching (Richards, 2002). Form-focused grammar instruction is what I have normally used when working with Mohan’s KF when introducing visuals to my students. The visual structure helps students comprehend the information and connect it with the underlying grammatical structure. To see how this works, let’s examine Figure 10.3 more closely. In our generative application, we will begin with descriptive language. Students can engage in various activities as they ask each other questions about the U.S. and U.K. governments (Figure 10.4).

Executive Branch

Vice President

Powers

President

Cabinet

Duties

Figure 10.3 The executive branch of the U.S. government

Visualizing MAP Grammar

- Describe the executive branch. - How many offices does the executive branch have? - Which branch of the US government is the vice president in?

123

- Is the cabinet in the judicial branch? - What is one duty of the vice president? - What is one (another) power of the president?

Figure 10.4 Sample of guiding questions for description (basic) Pattern Term A

Contrast Phrase

Term B

because

A

is unlike is different from differs from

B

because

A characteristics

Connectors

B characteristics

but while however

Figure 10.5 Basic patterns for contrasting

Accuracy should be stressed, with students required to ask complete questions and answer in full sentences. The guiding questions can simply be read at first, but should eventually be removed. The structure of the visual should be enough to guide students in how to read and talk about it. Once students are familiar with how to describe the visual orally, they might be asked to write a brief paragraph about it, or one part of it (e.g., the cabinet). As an extension, students might be asked to contrast powers and duties of different government branches, or of the U.S. and U.K. systems of government as a whole (Figure 10.5). The visual, and the language generated talking about it (i.e., to describe, ask or answer questions about it), will make abstract information more contextimbedded for students. The aim is to ensure students understand basic concepts so that they can begin higher processing of information and deeper understanding.

How does it work? Sequence and principles Exploratory application Figure 10.6 is a visual of a process cycle. This process involves explaining how something works and why (the principles behind it). The language used to talk about processes hinges largely on logical and chronological connectors: first,

124

Tim Stewart

A bill is submitted.

House Committee

House Rules Committee

Senate Committee

Conference Committee (if differences between Senate/ House bill)

Senate Floor

House Floor

Bill to the president

sign into law or veto

Figure 10.6 The legislative process in the legislative branch of the U.S. government

next, during, finally, and so on. Lines and arrows in a visual are important cues for linguistic structure. In Figure 10.6, students would begin reading the sequence at the top and follow the arrows. As they come to an arrow, they should think about the appropriate structure to describe that step in the process. As students talk about each step, they might add information to their own copy of the visual; however, a final step would be describing the sequence without the visual, or with just a basic visual structure to guide them. Teaching really is the teaching of principles. Cognitive processes related to principles are explaining, predicting, and hypothesizing. A principle is the relation between two or more classes of things. In this case, the rules of the U.S. legislative process. To talk about principles, students must use a variety of logical connectors which mainly serve as cohesive devices showing cause (because, due to), result (consequently), purpose (in order to) and condition (if, given that).

Visualizing MAP Grammar United Kingdom Parliamentary

125

United States Presidential

RESPONSIVENESS How well does each system respond to concerns of all citizens? LIMITEDNESS How well are government power and responsibility/duty defined? EFFECTIVENESS How well is the government able to achieve consensus and pass legislation? Figure 10.7 Evaluation of U.S. and U.K. government systems

How can I apply it? Decision making and evaluation Evaluative application Now that students have explored how the phenomenon works, they should be ready to evaluate it. This part of the KF engages students in talking about problems/solutions, opinions, rankings, etcetera. The table in Figure 10.7 lays out categories for evaluating systems of government. For this activity, students would apply the background knowledge built up systematically from instruction related to the first two columns of the KF. The language they would need to use would include: stating opinions, asking for opinions, agreeing/disagreeing, asking for/ giving reasons, and stating preferences. In order to help L2 students talk about this graphic, the teacher could provide a list of prompts: In my opinion . . . , I think . . . , I believe . . . , I agree . . . , I think so too, I disagree because. . . . Students might also practice refutation and language for seeking alternatives. As students work with graphic structures they are familiar with, the teacher will be able to expand the range of linguistic structures they introduce.

Conclusion To effectively engage in CBLI, teachers need a mechanism to direct instruction in a systematic way. Teachers who center their instruction around the use of active and cooperative learning techniques might find the KF, based in the notion of

126

Tim Stewart

activity (action situation), to be an attractive cohesive device to integrate content and language teaching. Deliberate planning is important for the success of CBLI/ CLIL, as it is unlikely that desired levels of second or foreign language proficiency will emerge simply from the teaching of content through a second or foreign language. The specification of language-learning objectives must be undertaken with deliberate, systematic planning and coordination of the language and content curricula. (Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989, p. 204) Long (2000) labeled the traditional sequential approach to grammar instruction a focus on forms. He contrasted this with a focus on meaning approach that includes no attention to form, and a focus on form approach that highlights linguistic structure within the context of meaningful communication. While Long maintained that a focus on form should be done sparingly, recent applications often include planned instruction. Instruction that relies on graphic representations of knowledge structures is one way to draw students’ attention to preselected forms. Obviously, teachers are quite familiar with graphic organizers, but do they use them in lessons for maximum effectiveness? The pedagogical strength of adopting a knowledge structure approach and organizing information graphically is that visuals can be a great aid to memory because they reduce the burden that text (words) put on working memory. By reducing the cognitive load on students, visual aids allow working memory to attend to new material. The key is to use the graphic organizers in a sustained way that is planned to relate content directly to language. Making these relations transparent lowers the linguistic barrier for L2 learners. Tajino’s MAP Grammar is a systemic approach with a clear, ‘visual’ element because his meaning units are organized in a table (see introduction). Tables are graphic representations of information, therefore, after students are taught the MAP Grammar categories systematically, they will be able to recall and use the categories intuitively without consulting a visual table. The trend toward more instruction in English worldwide will require many language learners to study in CBLI/CLIL contexts. This reality presents various challenges for curriculum design and instruction. In this chapter, I described a heuristic tool to integrate content and language learning in a systematic way. The aim ultimately is transparency – to help students successfully learn language, learn through language and learn about language.

References Abelson, R., & Black, J. (1986). Introduction. In J. Galombos, R. Abelson, & J. Black (Eds.), Knowledge structures (pp. 1–18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated instruction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Visualizing MAP Grammar

127

Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University. Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Lyster, R. (2011). Content-based second language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 611– 630). New York: Routledge. Maljers, A., Marsh, D., & Wolff, D. (2007). Windows on CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in the European spotlight. The Hague: European Platform for Dutch Education. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. New York: Addison-Wesley. Mohan, B. (1989). Knowledge structures and academic discourse. Word, 40, 99–115. doi:10.1080/00437956.1989.11435799 Mohan, B. (1991). LEP students and the integration of language and content: Knowledge structures and tasks. In A. Stein (Ed.), Proceedings of the first research symposium on limited English proficient students’ issues (pp. 113–160). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education Research and Evaluation. Richards, J. C. (2002). Accuracy and fluency revisited. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 35–50). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986a). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–191. doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199766567-0111 Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986b). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201–217. doi:10.2307/3587333 Swain, M. (1996). Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 529–548. Tang, G. (1992, March). Academic graphic literacy of Pacific Rim students. Paper presented at TESOL ’92, Twenty-Sixth Annual Convention and Exposition, Vancouver. Tang, G. (1993, April). Academic graphic literacy across languages and cultures: A study of Hong Kong students. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. Retrieved from www.files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED358699.pdf Tang, G. (1997). From graphic literacy across languages to integrating English and content teaching in vocational settings. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 97–114. Werner, O., & Schoepfle, G. M. (1987). Systematic fieldwork (2 vols.). London: Sage.

11 MAP Grammar and vocabulary Yosuke Sasao

Vocabulary was once “a neglected aspect of language learning” both in teaching and research (Meara, 1980, p. 2), partly because influential teaching methods such as the Audio-Lingual Method and Grammar Translation primarily aimed at mastery of grammatical rules and, as such, vocabulary learning was regarded only as a secondary matter. Over the last couple of decades, however, vocabulary has received increased attention in applied linguistics with the emerging recognition of its importance in language learning (see Nation, 2013). Despite the recent abundance of literature on vocabulary learning, grammar is apparently somewhat of a neglected aspect in vocabulary research. To be sure, the research has focused on the effective ways of learning and teaching vocabulary per se, but it does little to inform us how the learned words are built up into a sentence and can be used for communicative purposes to convey particular meaning. This chapter begins by looking at how grammar is dealt with in the vocabulary learning literature, and then argues that MAP Grammar makes a significant contribution to effective vocabulary learning based on Nation’s (1996, 2007) four strands of language learning.

Grammar in vocabulary learning Knowing a word means more than knowing its meaning. It involves many aspects, such as pronunciation, spelling, associations, collocations and register. Knowledge of the grammatical function of a word is also regarded as one component of vocabulary knowledge, and this is often associated with language use (Laufer, 1997; Nation, 2001, 2013; Schmitt, 2000). The grammatical aspect of vocabulary knowledge typically refers to knowing the word class (i.e., part of speech) of a word. It is necessary to know the grammatical category of a word in order to use it correctly. For example, learners need to know that the word succeed is a verb and success is a noun to avoid an ungrammatical utterance, such as, “You will success in the examination”. Morphology can also be seen as part of the grammatical aspect of vocabulary knowledge. Morphology deals with English affixes which attach to word stems and change their meaning or part of speech. Knowledge of English affixes contributes to accurate production of a sentence. For example, the word discussion consists of the stem discuss and the suffix -ion which has the function of making a noun, and thus, we can avoid an error such as “We discussioned the problem with our teacher”.

MAP Grammar and vocabulary

129

It is true that knowledge of part of speech plays an important part in grammatically accurate language use, but is it equally useful for learners with a wide variety of proficiency levels? In order to create a sentence through the application of part of speech knowledge, learners need to know the role each part of speech plays in a sentence, either implicitly or explicitly. Novice learners in particular may not be aware of how words are combined into a sentence. In this case, how can they learn words for productive use? One possible answer to this question is to memorize conventional, sentential expressions holistically without analyzing individual words. Examples include, “How are you today?” “I’m fine, thank you”, and “Excuse me”. These expressions are useful in facilitating social interaction, but as they are unanalyzable wholes, novice learners may find difficulty saying what they really want to say. For example, in response to the question “How are you?” learners may have no choice but to say, “I’m fine, thank you” even if they are, for example, in bad condition with a high fever. While this may be an extreme case, fixed expressions have limitations in terms of creative language use. Another approach to fostering learners’ vocabulary knowledge for productive use is focusing on formulaic sequences rather than individual words.1 A formulaic sequence (FS) refers to “a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated; that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar” (Wray, 2002, p. 9). Knowledge of FSs is important because they are likely to facilitate fluent, accurate, and natural language use. Since FSs are retrieved from memory as prefabricated wholes, learners do not have to think about what words come next, at least for the words within the FS. Linguistic accuracy is also maintained as long as the sequences are memorized correctly. Studies (e.g., Boers et al., 2006) suggest that the use of FSs makes the utterances sound more natural or native-like. Learning FSs is also beneficial to learners because they appear in a large proportion of language use. Erman and Warren (2000) showed that FSs accounted for 58.6% of their spoken corpus and 52.3% of their written corpus. Foster (2001) found that 32.3% of the speech by English native speakers were FSs. With the recognition of the importance of FSs, Lewis (1993) proposed the Lexical Approach which values lexis above grammar (as structure) under the presupposition that “language consists of chunks which, when combined, produce continuous coherent text” (Lewis, 1997, p. 7). In this approach, the instruction of grammatical structures is dismissed, and teachers’ primary job is to draw their learners’ attention to lexical chunks in the language they are exposed to. FSs may play a significant part in language learning, especially for intermediate and advanced learners who know how FSs and individual words are made up into a meaningful sentence. Knowledge of FSs may be of limited value to novice learners who lack such word order knowledge. The two example sentences from Burt (1975) that follow illustrate the relative importance of word order over FSs. 1) The English language use many people. 2) Much people use English language.

130

Yosuke Sasao

Both sentences have grammatical or lexical errors. In the first sentence, the subject and the object are inverted, and ‘use’ is used instead of ‘uses’. In the second sentence, ‘Much people’ must be ‘Many people’, and ‘the’ is needed prior to ‘English’. Burt (1975) found that the native-speaking judges considered the first sentence much less intelligible than the second one, arguing that errors in word order are global ones which result in a breakdown in communication, while many other errors are local ones which do not hinder communication significantly. This indicates that the knowledge of word sequences (the English language and many people) is not sufficient for successful communication, and it is necessary for novice learners, in particular, to be given guidelines that help prevent global errors (i.e., word order). The guideline needs to be simple, so far as it must be comprehensible to beginners. It also needs to be elegant in that it is applicable to the vast majority (if not all) of the English sentences. An attempt was made by Richards (1976) to incorporate Nilsen’s (1971) case grammar, which was organized from the perspective of semantic roles (e.g., agent, source, path and goal) into vocabulary teaching, but he stated, “While the insights of case grammar are useful we do not as yet have a pedagogic grammar of English based on this approach” (Richards, 1976, p. 87). The case grammar had a linguistic basis, but was not pedagogically useful, because it relied on the metacognitive terms of the semantic roles (agent, source, etc.), and it is unclear how learners can use such semantic roles to create a sentence. These limitations have been improved upon in the MAP Grammar model where wh-groups (who, what, how, where, when) are used for referring to the semantic roles and only one sentence pattern is presented (see Chapter 1, this volume for a detailed explanation about MAP Grammar). The subsequent section of this chapter considers the ways in which MAP Grammar may be incorporated into vocabulary learning.

Introducing MAP Grammar into vocabulary learning For effective language learning, Nation and colleagues (Nation, 1996, 2007, 2013; Nation & Webb, 2011; Nation & Yamamoto, 2012) proposed the principle of four strands which emphasizes an even balance of meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning and fluency development. This principle is believed to be applicable to vocabulary learning. This section briefly looks at how MAP Grammar contributes to each of the four types of vocabulary learning activities.

Meaning-focused input In this strand, learners’ main focus is to understand the messages they are reading or listening to. Language learning occurs incidentally as a by-product. Typical activities include “extensive reading, shared reading, listening to stories, watching TV or films and being a listener in a conversation” (Nation, 2007, p. 2). In doing so, it is important that the language used in the materials should not hinder their

MAP Grammar and vocabulary

131

comprehension. Research (Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010) indicates that in terms of vocabulary at least 95% (preferably 98%) of the running words need to be known to learners in order for a text to be comprehensible. However, little is known about the minimum requirements for learners’ syntactic knowledge. MAP Grammar is composed of a three-dimensional model with the Order of Meanings as the primary dimension. This dimension (Order of Meanings) may serve as fundamental syntactic knowledge that every learner needs to have in learning from meaning-focused input. Specifically, learners will need to know the following points about MAP Grammar: 1. 2. 3.

English sentences show only one pattern: Who/Does (is)/Who(m) What (How)/Where/When. The Who and Does (is) slots cannot be left blank in English. The Does (is) component determines what comes in the rest of the slots. Sinclair’s (1987) corpus-based research suggests that lexical choice, particularly of verbs, largely determines the grammatical construction of the rest of the sentence.

There are at least four advantages in knowing these points: 1. 2.

3.

4.

MAP Grammar relies on wh-words which should be comprehensible even to novice learners. MAP Grammar may facilitate sentence processing because each component expressed under the wh-words is directly linked to meaning insofar that it is concerned with the meaning (semantic roles) in a sentence. The analysis of grammatical functions (e.g., subject, object, agent, goal) could impose a heavy cognitive burden on the learners in sentence processing. MAP Grammar may help learners read or listen actively. Since a verb determines the argument structure in the sentence, learners could anticipate what information comes next when the Who and Does (is) components are processed. For example, when one hears the utterance “She put . . . ”, he or she can predict that something she put comes next, followed by the place where she put it. The explicit knowledge of MAP Grammar is likely to contribute to faster and more accurate sentence processing. (Tajino, Kanamaru, & Sasao, 2015)

Beginners may find difficulty identifying which word(s) corresponds to which component (Who, Does, Who(m), . . .). In the introductory stage, teachers could indicate the semantic roles in a sentence as shown in Example A. At a later stage, it might be sufficient simply to signal the boundary of each semantic role (Example B). Example A) Example B)

My mother put her bag on the desk. Who Does What Where My mother / put / her bag / on the desk.

132

Yosuke Sasao

Results of studies have demonstrated that incidental learning is very fragile and a large quantity of input is needed (e.g., Waring & Takaki, 2003). The more input learners gain, the more likely they are to understand sentences without aids such as in Examples A and B. For novice learners, MAP Grammar may serve as scaffolding for effective learning from meaning-focused input – namely, to help make a sequence of words into meaningful chunks.

Meaning-focused output This strand involves learning from productive language use such as writing and speaking. Typical activities include “talking in conversations, giving a speech or lecture, writing a letter, writing a note to someone, keeping a diary, telling a story and telling someone how to do something” (Nation, 2007, p. 3). Output activities play a significant role in vocabulary learning because productive vocabulary knowledge effectively results from productive use of the words (Webb, 2009). MAP Grammar contributes to vocabulary learning because it is effective in generating a large amount of comprehensible output which provides learners with many learning opportunities from meaningfocused output. It is particularly useful for novice learners for the following reasons. 1. 2.

3. 4.

It is simple: only one sentence pattern is presented. It avoids the use of metacognitive terms (subject, object, agent, etc.). This may save learners’ cognitive resources, which, in turn, increases their attention to refining the ideas or messages that they are expressing. It directs their attention to meaning rather than language forms, because it is directly linked to meaning (order of semantic roles). It differentiates between global (word order) and local errors, and suggests that learners avoid the former errors. They may make local errors, but these errors do not usually seriously affect communication.

One role for output is to promote noticing (Swain, 1985). It is important for learners to notice the gap between what they can say and what they want to say (Ellis, 1994). MAP Grammar-based learning may allow local errors in speaking or writing, but learners will recognize the gap in their knowledge at a later stage. MAP Grammar facilitates interaction with their peers and teacher, which may promote their noticing (Elley, 1989; Swain & Lapkin, 1995).

Language-focused learning This strand involves the deliberate, intentional learning of language items. Typical activities include learning vocabulary from word cards, intensive reading, receiving feedback, guessing from context and using a dictionary (Nation, 2007, p. 5). There is plenty of research evidence that suggests deliberate learning is effective and efficient (Nation, 2013, pp. 437–478). In addition, deliberate vocabulary

MAP Grammar and vocabulary

Single-word

Multi-word

yesterday today tomorrow now then immediately

at X on X in X next X X ago last X

when X since X while X before X after X as soon as X

133

ahead of X prior to X at the end of X in the meantime at regular intervals by fits and snatches

Figure 11.1 Example words and FSs that can be put in the when slot * X can take a variety of words, phrases or clauses.

learning leads to implicit knowledge that can be accessed subconsciously and automatically (Elgort, 2011). The MAP Grammar model offers a new approach to deliberate vocabulary learning. Words and FSs can be categorized according to semantic roles in the MAP Grammar model. For example, the When slot can take words and FSs as shown in Figure 11.1. The value of this approach lies in the direct relationship between vocabulary learning and use; that is, vocabulary is learned with the main focus being put on how to use it based on the MAP Grammar model. This MAP Grammar-based deliberate vocabulary learning motivates learners to try using the newly learned items, and through output activities, they strengthen the vocabulary knowledge or recognize the gap in their knowledge. When learners notice the gap, they will become aware of where their weakness lies in the MAP Grammar model and memorize new words and FSs in their weak slot (semantic role) for future successful communication. The learning order may be determined by frequency, complexity, productivity, and so on. This is an area where future research is needed.

Fluency development This strand aims to develop fluency in all the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Activities for this strand can roughly be divided into two: doing repetitive tasks or doing easy tasks (including very few unknown vocabulary and grammar items). Since this strand is also meaning-focused, MAP Grammar is useful for the same reasons as described in the meaning-focused input and the meaning-focused output sections.

Conclusion This chapter has considered how grammar has been viewed in the literature of L2 vocabulary learning. It is true that the knowledge of part of speech and FSs

134

Yosuke Sasao

helps learners create accurate and natural sentences, but it is not especially sufficient for novice learners who do not know how words and phrases are made up into a sentence. A large number of vocabulary learning tasks and activities have been proposed, but many of them presuppose that learners have the knowledge of fundamental grammar rules that allow them to produce and comprehend the meanings of the sentences. In other words, grammar is left aside or is thought ‘given’ to learners, and thus, meaning-focused activities are unlikely to work well, especially for novice learners. This chapter has argued that MAP Grammar can make a significant contribution to effective vocabulary learning based on Nation’s four strands of language learning. First, MAP Grammar facilitates meaning-focused input because it encourages learners to read and listen actively by predicting the information to come. It may also be used as scaffolding for fluent sentence comprehension. Second, MAP Grammar promotes meaning-focused output. Learners’ utterances may include local errors, but producing a lot of output may increase the chance of noticing such errors. Third, MAP Grammar-based deliberate vocabulary learning should result in ready-to-use knowledge. The final strand, fluency development, is built upon the other three strands where MAP Grammar plays a significant role. This indicates the positive effects of MAP Grammar on vocabulary learning and future research will investigate more specific ways in which vocabulary is learned or taught based on the MAP Grammar model.

Acknowledgements My deepest appreciation goes to Professor Akira Tajino who gave me invaluable and insightful feedback on an earlier draft of this chapter.

Note 1 A formulaic sequence is labeled in different ways by different researchers and practitioners (e.g., multi-word unit, chunk, collocation and lexical bundle) to refer to slightly different notions (Wray, 2002). Schmitt and Carter (2004) used the term formulaic sequence as the overarching term for phraseology with varying degrees of idiomaticity.

References Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting the Lexical Approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr195oa Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53–63. doi:10.2307/3586012 Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 61(2), 367–413. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00613.x Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 174–187. doi:10.2307/747863

MAP Grammar and vocabulary

135

Ellis, R. (1994). Factors in the incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary from oral input: A review essay. Applied Language Learning, 5(1), 1–32. Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62. doi:10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 75–93). Harlow: Longman. Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430. Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Intralexical factors affecting the difficulty of vocabulary acquisition. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30. Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 13(4), 221–246. doi:10.1017/ S0261444800008879 Nation, I. S. P. (1996). The four strands of a language course. TESOL in Context, 6(1), 7–12. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1–12. doi:10.2167/illt039.0 Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle. Nation, I. S. P., & Yamamoto, A. (2012). Applying the four strands to language learning. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(2), 167–181. Nilsen, D. L. F. (1971). The use of case grammar in teaching English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 5(4), 293–299. doi:10.2307/3585495 Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77–89. doi:10.2307/3585941 Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formualic sequences: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sinclair, J. M. (1987). Collocation: A progress report. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (Vol. 2, pp. 319–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.),

136

Yosuke Sasao

Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371 Tajino, A., Kanamaru, T., & Sasao, Y. (2015). Bunpousei handan no seikakusa to ryuuchousa eno “Imijun” chishiki no kouka [The effects of the “MAP Grammar” knowledge on accuracy and fluency in grammaticality judgement]. Paper presented at the The 159th Higashi Asia Eigo Kyouiku Kenkyukai [English Education in East Asia Research Project], Seinan Gakuin University, Fukuoka. Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 130–163. Webb, S. (2009). The effects of receptive and productive learning of word pairs on vocabulary knowledge. RELC Journal, 40(3), 360–376. doi:10.1177/0033688209343854 Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12 MAP Grammar and listening Kyoko Hosogoshi, Yuka Hidaka and Daniel Roy Pearce

In many language classrooms and language testing settings, listening tasks focus on evaluating listening comprehension, which requires learners to reproduce details of the listening content. This has lead researchers to focus on how to enhance learners’ listening comprehension, and there has been much research conducted on listening support to help learners improve listening for content (Chang & Read, 2006; Griffiths, 1992; Hayati & Mohmedi, 2011; Sherman, 1997; Zhao, 1997). Successful comprehension, however, does not always lead to improvement in learners’ listening skills. While this may seem counterintuitive, Rost (2002) claims that not everything that is understood on the message level contributes to the learner’s understanding of the language itself. Listening for comprehension and listening for the purpose of acquiring language are different tasks, and as yet, there has been little research on effective methods of accomplishing both of these tasks at the same time. This chapter aims to address this gap, suggesting that the application of MAP Grammar instruction may be an effective method to accomplish both types of listening instruction simultaneously. We present the results of a study that investigated the effect of MAP Grammar instruction on learners’ listening proficiency as well as learner attitudes towards instruction.

Listening process The most common models of L2 theory on the listening process are the topdown, bottom-up, and interactive models. According to Flowerdew and Miller (2005), top-down models emphasize the use of previous knowledge in processing a text, while bottom-up models emphasize the use of the sounds and phonemes which are combined into words, phrases and sentences. Interactive models are the combination of the top-down and bottom-up, in that phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic information interact with each other in this model. Previous studies on the listening process and comprehension have found that skilled listeners are better at employing top-down processes, whereas less-skilled listeners tend to rely on bottom-up processes (Tsui & Fullilove, 1998). As VanPatten (1990) has demonstrated, less-skilled learners have difficulty in attending to both content and form while listening; thus, automatizing bottom-up processes may

138

Kyoko Hosogoshi, Yuka Hidaka and Daniel Roy Pearce

be beneficial for less-skilled learners by allowing the allocation of more cognitive capacity to top-down processes in listening. In order to automatize the bottomup processes, learners need to acquire phonological, syntactic and semantic knowledge and practice processing information using such knowledge. Another model of the listening process proposed by Anderson (2015), from the perspective of cognitive psychology, breaks listening down into three stages: perception, parsing and utilization. Perception involves encoding the acoustic message, where the listener identifies and segments phonemes from the stream of speech. In the next stage, the act of parsing transforms the words in the message into a mental representation of the combined meaning of the words; here, syntactic and semantic cues are integrated to arrive at an interpretation of a sentence. Utilization, the final stage, indicates the use of the mental representation of the sentence’s meaning. In other words, a listener might passively record the meaning, or most likely, take action in response to what they heard. This model remains a matter of research in regarding what kind of listening tasks might correspond to, or help to develop proficiency in, the respective stages and/or across stages. With regards to the perception and parsing stages, phonological, syntactic and semantic knowledge are indispensable.

Teaching listening with grammar Researchers have previously scrutinized methods of enhancing students’ listening comprehension, shedding light on possible listening support. For example, adjusting speech rate (Griffiths, 1992; Zhao, 1997), repetition of the input (Chang & Read, 2006), vocabulary instruction (Chang & Read, 2006), preview of the questions (Chang & Read, 2006; Sherman, 1997), and the use of subtitles (Hayati & Mohmedi, 2011; Perez, Noortgate, & Desmet, 2013). Among these types of listening support, adjusting the speech rate serves as phonological support, while repetition of input, vocabulary instruction, preview of the questions and use of subtitles work as semantic support. Even though syntactic knowledge also makes a great contribution to faster processing in listening, as we have seen in the earlier section, there is little research on the effects of syntactic support or instruction for listening comprehension. This might be attributed to the fact that listening comprehension tests themselves are often meaning-focused, not form-focused. When applying a grammar approach to listening, teachers often have students listen to a text while looking at the script (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005), with the goal to have students identify words by looking at their position in a sentence in relation to other words and phrases, so that inferences can be made. However, one important aspect of listening is not being able to refer back to the source, as speech is often only available to the listener as a continuous stream of sound. From that perspective, this approach tends to become more of a reading practice than a listening practice. Field (2008) introduces parsing tasks alongside other tasks to help learners recognize meanings via grammatical cues and claims that grammatical knowledge is useful in making predictions of what word is to come

MAP Grammar and listening

139

next during listening. The next section provides more information about parsing tasks and how they should be applied in teaching listening.

Parsing tasks Flowerdew and Miller (2005) define parsing as a process of the structural analysis of incoming language data; as we process messages, the brain applies the syntactic rules of the language to parse sentences and make sense of them. That is, learners draw upon the grammatical knowledge of the language in listening when parsing (Rost, 2002). As stated in the earlier sections, listening tasks conducted in language classrooms often fail to focus on syntactic cues or pay too much attention to getting information from the context. Ellis (2003) claims that there are two types of listening: 1) listening to comprehend, which involves the tasks mentioned earlier, and 2) listening to learn, such as a task that aims at filling in a blank to notice inflection. Parsing tasks can also assist learners to focus on and notice syntactic cues, such as inflection and word order. Through repetition of parsing, learners eventually gain a deeper knowledge of syntax and accelerate listening processing, which could lead to a greater acquisition of listening skills. According to Field (2008), the structure of an English sentence is often decided by the verb, thus, knowing the pattern associated with a particular verb serves to predict the proceeding message. Considering this, he suggests some modified parsing exercises, such as adding a pause after a verb and asking learners what words come next. Taking all of the aforementioned issues into account, the following section outlines the details of a study that examined whether the teaching of grammar based on MAP Grammar instructions with parsing tasks can be effective for the development of listening skills and positive attitudes toward learning.

Methodology Instruction was carried out in a CALL classroom over two days as part of an intensive summer course for Japanese university students preparing to take the TOEFL® iBT test. A pre-test for listening was conducted before the instruction, and the results were compared with those of a post-test held after the second day of the course. The participants were also asked to give feedback through a questionnaire about the tasks, the results of which are discussed next.

Participants The participants in the course were students at a women’s university in the Kansai region of Japan. The participants were between 18 and 24 years of age and consisted of first-year undergraduate students through to second-year graduate school students from a variety of departments, including literature, physics and biochemistry. The English ability of the participants ranged from 500 to 925 points on the TOEIC® test.

140

Kyoko Hosogoshi, Yuka Hidaka and Daniel Roy Pearce

A Meaning-Order Based Approach to Clause Structure who

does(is)

who(m)

what

how

where

when

Q: What is the most important quality in a good neighbor?

Figure 12.1 Visualization of MAP Grammar units for listening

The total number of participants in the course was 27. Due to scheduling conflicts, however, only 17 of the participants were able to take part in both days of instruction. Data from students who were absent for either the pre- or post-tests were excluded.

Materials Several audio-visual materials for the parsing tasks were developed with the MAP Grammar structure. The materials included color-coded MAP Grammar meaning boxes (see Figure 12.1), which made it visually apparent that the verb is a key component in a sentence. The appropriate box was highlighted with darker shading as the relevant audio was playing, and pauses were included between the meaning boxes to allow the participants to predict what words would come next and in which boxes. In this way, the materials were designed to assist students in recognizing syntactic cues such as inflection and word order. Each audio recording was played twice for the participants; first to allow the participants to focus on parsing and then to engage in shadowing.

Pre-test A pre-test was conducted to measure participants’ listening comprehension ability before the instruction. An audio clip, the content of which was based on a model answer to a TOEFL®-type speaking task was played to the students once. The content was chosen to fit the aim of the course, which was a comprehensive course covering all sections of the TOEFL® test, and thus the listening tasks served a dual purpose by also introducing participants to the speaking section. The content (a monologue) was 1:02 in length, and was a model answer to the prompt “What is the most important quality in a good neighbor?” Prior to the listening, the participants were instructed verbally (in Japanese) that they would be required to reproduce as much of the listening content as

MAP Grammar and listening

141

possible. As the aim of the pre-test was to measure comprehension, participants were told that they may write their answers in either English or their native language, Japanese. Answers were to be submitted through a Google Forms® page created by one of the authors. Participants were given five minutes to complete their answers. The pre-test was later analyzed on the number of idea units (see Kroll, 1977; IU hereafter) that the participants were able to reproduce, following Kim’s (2001) idea units (IUs) importance hierarchy.

Instruction Instruction was carried out over two days, with 90 minutes of time devoted to listening activities for each day. Participants received a 30-minute lecture explaining the structure of MAP Grammar, including an explanation of how the seven sentence patterns fit into MAP and how the α (alpha) box is used. After the lecture, the participants once again listened to the contents of the pre-test. This time, a visual component was introduced, parsing the content into the MAP Grammar meaning boxes. As the aim of the course was to prepare the participants for the TOEFL® test, attention was given not only to listening but also to the other skills required for the test. The participants thus engaged in parsing tasks (i.e., listening to the audio with the MAP Grammar parsing video) before summarizing the content to a partner. Five such tasks were conducted over two days (including a review of the pre-test content), in which participants were given multiple attempts at listening to the audio. The content of each task was based on model answers to a TOEFL® speaking section, as in the pre-test. During the instruction, participants were also given an opportunity to answer multiple-choice comprehension questions about the content.

Post-test After the listening instruction on Day 2 of the course, a post-test was carried out. The structure of the post-test was identical to the pre-test, although the content of the audio was different: a model answer to the prompt “What is the most important quality in a good teacher?” Participants listened to an audio file once and were given five minutes to reproduce as much of the content as possible. The audio of both the pre- and post-tests was recorded by the same orator. Data from the pre- and post-tests were analyzed in terms of IUs reproduced by the participants. The IUs were identified by the authors and categorized as 1) main idea, 2) supporting idea and 3) additional idea (see Kroll, 1977). Table 12.1 describes the number of each type of idea unit in the pre- and post-tests. While the total number of IUs differed between the pre- and post-tests, the relative number of each type of IU (expressed in Table 12.1 in percentages) remained very similar.

142

Kyoko Hosogoshi, Yuka Hidaka and Daniel Roy Pearce

Table 12.1 Number of IUs in the pre- and post-test listening materials

Main IU Supporting IU Additional IU Total IU

Pre-test

Post-test

5 (23.8%) 7 (33.3%) 9 (42.9%) 21 (100.0%)

4 (23.5%) 6 (35.3%) 7 (41.2%) 17 (100.0%)

Participants responses were analyzed by the three authors, and interrater reliability was established with Cronbach’s alpha at α = 0.941 for the pre-test and α = 0.826 for the post-test, with an overall reliability of α = 0.888. Results of the pre- and post-tests are analyzed employing independent t-tests.

Questionnaire A questionnaire was provided to participants after the post-test. Questions consisted of five-point Likert scale items, as well as long-form responses that requested a reason for participant responses. Questions addressed the efficacy of MAP Grammar parsing in the recognition of vocabulary and grammar structures, speaker intention, overall ease of listening, with items based on Anderson’s (2015) listening processes (perception, parsing and utilization), as well as several affective factors using Peacock’s (1998) enjoyableness and usefulness. Results of the questionnaire are also discussed next.

Results and discussion In this section, results gained from the listening recall tests and questionnaire during the course will be discussed to examine the effects of MAP Grammar instruction on performance, as well as the participants’ perceptions of MAP Grammar’s impact on the development of listening skills.

Listening recall tests Table 12.2 shows the result of the listening tests conducted before and after the course. On average, the participants could recall a significantly greater amount of the assigned listening passage after the instruction. From the earlier result, we maintain that the instruction of MAP Grammar is meaningful in facilitating students’ listening performance. MAP Grammar was especially helpful for understanding detailed information (i.e., supporting IU and additional IU), possibly because MAP Grammar segmented the linear oral input into multi-dimensional grammatical structures. As an example, conditional clauses with if or when, which precede main clauses, seemed to be difficult for the participants in the pre-test. Out of a total of 17 participants, 17.6% could recall

MAP Grammar and listening

143

Table 12.2 Results of the listening recall tests Pre-test

Main IU Supporting IU Additional IU Total IU

Post-test

M

SD

M

SD

t

p

0.435 0.118 0.118 0.193

(0.215) (0.177) (0.144) (0.120)

0.368 0.412 0.269 0.343

(0.295) (0.271) (0.159) (0.185)

0.953 3.773 3.126 3.515

0.354 0.002** 0.007** 0.003**

Notes: N = 17. The numbers in M columns indicate average percentage of recalled IU. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

(1) and 11.8% could recall (2). And after receiving MAP Grammar instruction, 52.9% of the participants could refer to (3) and 64.7% could refer to (4). (1) But if they have parties (pre-test IU13: supporting IU); (2) If she goes out of town (pre-test IU21: supporting IU); (3) If a teacher is not able to understand their students (post-test IU6: additional IU); and (4) When students have a good relationship with their teacher (post-test IU15: additional IU). On the other hand, recall of main IU remained statistically the same even after the MAP Grammar instruction. Further investigation of the data revealed that relatively more participants failed to remember the definition of the key concept of the passage in the post-test than in the pre-test. While 47.1% of the students could recall (5), only 23.5% could recall (6). Perhaps, the pronunciation and meaning of the keyword compassion in the post-test might have been less familiar to the students. (5) Consideration means doing nice things for your neighbor (pre-test IU3: main IU) (6) Compassion means having empathy and concern for students (post-test IU2: main IU)

Questionnaire results Table 12.3 summarizes the results of the questionnaire regarding students’ perception of the effect of the grammar-focused instruction on the listening process and motivation. As for the listening process, it was for the parsing phase that participants most valued the MAP Grammar instruction. Among a total number of 17 students, 82.4% agreed or relatively agreed on its efficacy. The following are some voices

144

Kyoko Hosogoshi, Yuka Hidaka and Daniel Roy Pearce

Table 12.3 Results of the questionnaire

Perception Parsing Utilization Enjoyableness Usefulness

1

2

3

4

5

5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

5.9% 5.9% 23.5% 0.0% 0.0%

29.4% 11.8% 11.8% 5.9% 11.8%

47.1% 41.2% 41.2% 47.1% 23.5%

11.8% 41.2% 23.5% 47.1% 64.7%

Notes: N = 17. 1 = disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = not agree nor disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree.

from those participants.1 They seem to value the task for decoding grammatical structures (7, 8, 9) and for predicting upcoming information (10). Some students replied that the parsing task was especially effective for relative pronouns and long sentences (11, 12). (7) It was easier to understand the structure by thinking about it in meaning chunks. (8) Even if some of the smaller nuances are difficult to grasp, it [MAP Grammar instruction] made the stronger points or gist of the sentence easy to grasp, so I wasn’t as confused when listening. (9) While the five sentences patterns where difficult for me to understand, it [MAP Grammar instruction] finally made things clear. (10) Being aware of the hierarchical structure of sentences helped me to guess the function of words whose meaning I didn’t know, but sounded important. (11) It [MAP Grammar instruction] made it much easier to understand when listening to relative pronouns, or very long sentences. (12) I think it [MAP Grammar instruction] helped to understand parts of speech through thinking about the grammar, which I haven’t been very good at before. Of the students, 58.9% agreed or somewhat agreed to the efficacy of the tasks for perception, too. Feedback from the participants suggests that the tasks were positively valued for recognizing specific grammatical structure (13, 14), and for guessing upcoming information (15). These comments suggest that the learning systems of the English syntactic structure assisted in the phonological segmentation of words during listening. Thus, MAP Grammar could contribute to automatization of bottom-up processing. Contrarily, 11.8% of the students admitted that MAP Grammar was merely an additional cognitive burden, possibly due to their limited listening proficiency level (16). (13) I understand that paying attention to the structure is important, not just idly listening.

MAP Grammar and listening

145

(14) I felt it was easier to understand while following the meaning order of English. (15) I know what to listen for next. (16) The audio was too fast for me to pay attention to the order. While 64.7% of the participants still responded positively to the effect of the tasks for the utilization phase, it was also noted that this phase gained the most negative evaluation among the three phases of the listening process. Almost one-quarter (i.e., 23.5%) of the participants chose to disagree or somewhat disagree with it. The advocates value it for providing a ‘native-like’ sense of English sentence structure (17) and for grasping the speaker’s argumentation (18). On the other hand, other students evaluated the tasks as irrelevant for the meaningoriented process where listeners interpret the speaker’s message (19) or as too demanding in a limited allotment of time and on students’ cognitive load (20, 21). As mentioned in the literature review section, utilization is the process to generate a meaningful representation from parsed sentences. Thus, it seems that MAP Grammar, which concerns word order, was regarded as not so effective for utilization by the participants themselves even though their listening comprehension as a result of the whole listening process did improve after the instruction. (17) It [MAP Grammar] gave some insight into how native speakers understand sentences, so I think it helped a little in understanding what the speaker wanted to say. (18) I think being able to predict the next words help with understanding the speaker’s intention. (19) I feel that the words rather than the order are more important to understand meaning. (20) It [MAP Grammar] made some parts more difficult to grasp, so it didn’t help with understanding the intention. (21) I wasn’t able to grasp the intention during listening, but it [MAP Grammar] was useful for reading. Finally, both of the two questions regarding motivation (enjoyableness and usefulness) gained almost 90% positive response: (22) I enjoyed thinking in mind according the rhythm (enjoyableness). (23) It [MAP Grammar] explained clearly what I had wondered when I was a junior high school student (enjoyableness). (24) I could easily understand how to segment any English text into simple keyword such as who or where (usefulness). (25) Getting used to MAP Grammar, I am sure I will be able to develop my speed and accuracy in writing or speaking (usefulness). From the earlier results, we maintain that the MAP Grammar instruction has served to facilitate students’ listening comprehension and, accordingly, that

146

Kyoko Hosogoshi, Yuka Hidaka and Daniel Roy Pearce

it is positively evaluated by the students as an enjoyable and helpful learning practice.

Conclusion This chapter argues that the explicit teaching of grammar can be effective for both the development of listening comprehension and language acquisition through listening. From our case study, the listening recall tests suggested that the audiovisual tasks using MAP Grammar resulted in better listening comprehension. As for listening skill acquisition, the questionnaire revealed that the instruction may accelerate some part of the listening process. MAP Grammar seemed to help learners grasp information in detail and analyze grammatical structures of speech, including complex ones like relative clauses. In addition to the positive effect on the parsing phase, we found that it might serve for perception as well. The grammar-based instruction was considered highly motivating by the students. Therefore, we conclude that the MAP Grammar instruction would be a sufficient form of teaching listening which provides learners with opportunities to practice their bottom-up processing while listening to learn (Ellis, 2003). This study is one of the initial attempts to investigate the significance of the MAP Grammar for receptive skill development. Since this study could have focused on listening to monologue expository speech, future studies will be anticipated to examine its effects under different listening types such as dialogue argumentative discussion.

Note 1 Learner responses have been translated from Japanese by one of the authors.

References Anderson, J. R. (2015). Cognitive psychology and its implications (8th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. Chang, A. C., & Read, J. (2006). The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 375–397. doi:10.2307/ 40264527 Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, R. (1992). Speech rate and listening comprehension: Further evidence of the relationship. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 385–390. doi:10.2307/3587015 Hayati, A., & Mohmedi, F. (2011). The effect of films with and without subtitles on listening comprehension of EFL learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 181–192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01004.x

MAP Grammar and listening

147

Kim, S. A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL Readers’ summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 569–581. doi:10.1111/ j.1944-9720.2001.tb02104.x Kroll, B. (1977). Combining ideas in written and spoken English: A look at subordination and coordination. In E. O. Keenan & T. L. Bennett (Eds.), Discourse across time and space (pp. 69–108). Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. Peacock, M. (1998). Usefulness and enjoyableness of teaching materials as predictors of on-task behavior. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 3(2). Retrieved from www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume3/ej10/ej10a3/?wscr Perez, M. M., Noortgate, W. V. D., & Desmet, P. (2013). Captioned video for L2 listening and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. System, 41(3), 720–739. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.07.013 Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching: Listening. Edinburgh: Pearson Education. Sherman, J. (1997). The effect of question preview in listening comprehension tests. Language Testing, 14(2), 185–213. doi:10.1177/026553229701400204 Tsui, A. B. M., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 432–451. doi:10. 1093/applin/19.4.432 VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287–301. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009177 Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listeners’ control of speech rate on second language comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 49–68. doi:10.1093/applin/18.1.49

13 MAP Grammar and relative clauses in EFL learners’ writing Noriko Kurihara, Kei Kawanishi and Kiyo Sakamoto

Relative clauses are widely used to add supporting information to English sentences, especially in academic and professional writing. Cho and Lee (2016, p. 69) described them as “an effective way to provide additional, detailed information about new concepts and findings” in scientific journals. However, their complex syntactic structure and multiple types of subordination make relative clauses challenging for ESL and EFL learners. As a result, SLA researchers have studied them extensively. For example, research on the difficulty of learning relative clauses has found that clauses modifying the subject of a sentence are more easily grasped than those modifying the object; this pattern is called NP accessibility hierarchy (Doughty, 1991; Keenan & Comrie, 1977). Other studies have suggested that the production and use of relative clauses are easier in particular tasks and contexts (Hansen-Strain & Strain, 1989). The present study took place within an EFL writing course at a university, in which students practice writing paragraphs and essays. Course teachers report that learners tend to write short, simple sentences, rarely using subordinate and relative clauses even if they understand these concepts grammatically. To help students write with more complex structures, we applied MAP Grammar. For a detailed review of MAP, see Chapter 1. As explained in Chapter 1, Japanese learners of English struggle with the vast difference in syntax between the two languages. One important difficulty is rearranging thoughts and concepts from the predominant SOV syntax of Japanese into the linear SVO structure of English. Graphic organizers have been an effective tool in this regard. Suzuki, Saito, and Awazu (2008) reported positive effects of using graphic organizers when students were reading lengthy sentences combined using coordinate conjunctions. They concluded that spatial representations help learners grasp the linear nature of a language. As for productive skills, DelRose (2011) found that scaffolding using graphic organizers significantly improved young native speakers’ production of oral narrative. Graphic organizers can be helpful in organizing thoughts and concepts and producing complex structures (see also Chapter 11). Building on this evidence, the present exploratory study incorporated MAP and graphic organizers into the teaching of relative clauses.

MAP Grammar and relative clauses

149

Methodology By incorporating MAP into a college classroom, we aimed to answer the following questions: 1. 2.

How does the use of MAP in a college writing classroom affect relative clause production by students of various English proficiency levels? Do graphic organizers based on MAP help students use different relative pronouns properly? If so, how?

Participants The participants of this study were 96 students in their first year at a national university in Japan. The students’ TOEIC scores ranged from 310 to 545. They were selected to facilitate their division into three groups on the basis of their TOEIC scores: high proficiency (525–545), middle proficiency (420–430) and low proficiency (310–340). In this way, we could assess MAP’s effects on students with different competency levels. These students had all received several years of grammar- and reading-focused instruction in high school, which equipped them to answer questions on reading or grammar items; however, they still often struggled to produce grammatically correct written text.

Research design The study was conducted during eight weeks of a semester-long writing course, each class period of which contained two 60-minute segments. The MAP instruction was provided at the beginning of the first segment every week. The instruction comprised warm-up, the MAP instruction with graphic organizers displayed via PowerPoint, drills using MAP with graphic organizers, and feedback. In the first week after the pre-test, MAP was introduced to familiarize students with the basic idea of meaning-order in English sentence structure; instruction on relative pronouns in restricted clauses using MAP started the following week. For five weeks, one specific case of a relative pronoun was treated, in the following order: subjective which, objective which (represented hereafter as which S and which O, respectively), subjective who, objective whom1 and possessive whose. Before and after these instructional weeks, pretests and post-tests were administered on grammar translation, elicitation, and composition. Each test covered all five types of relative pronouns.

Translation test The grammar translation test examined students’ understanding of relative pronouns as used in complex sentences. It comprised 15 questions, three for each type of relative pronoun. Each question involved translating from Japanese to English a sentence that contained a relative pronoun.

150

Noriko Kurihara, Kei Kawanishi and Kiyo Sakamoto

Elicitation test The elicitation test contained ten questions, each of which asked students to complete a sentence describing a particular picture. The pictures were designed to cause students to use the five types of relative pronouns twice each. This controlled composition test had two objectives: to assess whether students could write a relative clause correctly and to explore how they used relative pronouns.

Composition test The composition test examined students’ spontaneous use of relative pronouns. Students were asked to describe a dumpling called kibidango in English while referring to a folktale called Momotaro, in which the hero uses kibidango to obtain service from helpful animals. The task of defining an object was chosen because it was expected to prompt the use of relative pronouns in sentences. As this story is a popular folktale in Japan, it was assumed that all students would be familiar with the topic.

Raters Three researchers rated the tests. First, all three looked at one-third of the students’ answers together to decide on the rating standards. Next, two raters assessed the remaining answers individually. If there was a discrepancy, a third rater examined and made a final assessment. The same assessment procedure was applied to each test.

Results Translation test Table 13.1 summarizes the accuracy rates of each proficiency group on both the pre-test and post-test for each relative pronoun type, by percentage. Accuracy was Table 13.1 Accuracy rates by type of relative pronoun time

proficiency

which S

who

which O

whom

whose

total

PRE

High Mid Low High Mid Low

87.78% 87.88% 79.80% 100.00% 98.99% 95.96%

93.33% 78.79% 78.79% 100.00% 97.98% 94.95%

87.78% 77.78% 68.69% 96.67% 93.94% 87.88%

90.00% 78.79% 68.69% 92.22% 94.95% 87.88%

93.33% 70.71% 77.78% 100.00% 98.99% 89.90%

90.47% 78.80% 74.73% 97.80% 97.00% 91.33%

POST

MAP Grammar and relative clauses

151

measured by word order and the proper use of relative pronouns; if the meaning order was correct in a clause, minor spelling errors or wrong tense forms were overlooked. The overall accuracy rates (far right column) show that the highproficiency group improved from 90.47% to 97.80%, the middle group from 78.80% to 97.00% and the low group from 74.73% to 91.33%. To further investigate the nature of changes in accuracy rates, a three-way ANOVA was performed with proficiency, time (pre/post) and question type as factors. The ANOVA showed that proficiency (F(8.87, 1.42) = 6.25, p < 0.01), time (F(42.41, 2.46) = 57.04, p < 0.01) and question type (F(1.45, 0.38) = 4.784, p < 0.01) all had statistically significant effects on the outcomes. An interaction was observed between proficiency and time (F(2.46, 0.74) = 3.31, p < 0.05) but not among proficiency, time and question type. On the pre-test, the only statistically significant difference between groups was between the high- and low-proficiency groups (p < 0.05). After the treatment, however, the difference between the middle and low groups was also statistically significant (p < 0.05). In sum, every proficiency group improved significantly from pre-test to post-test, with the middle group making particularly considerable gains, becoming significantly different from the low group in the post-test. Although statistically insignificant, some differences were also seen between types of relative clauses, with better performance on which S and who than on which O and whom. Table 13.2 shows the error rates of each group on both the pre-test and posttest for various error types, by percentage. Due to the nature of translation, interpretation errors occurred alongside word order errors. Besides zero response, word order errors were divided into three categories: non-relative, meaning word order of the non-relative part of the response; word order, indicating global errors that marred meaning; and intra-clausal word order, indicating other minor errors within the relative clause. Except for zero response and interpretation, syntactic errors were counted. The error rate for every group dropped in the post-test, and the zero response column had the largest drops.

Table 13.2 Error rates for each proficiency group time PRE

proficiency interpretation nonword relative order

High Mid Low POST High Mid Low

0.67% 0.81% 0.61% 0.00% 0.40% 0.20%

2.89% 4.85% 1.01% 0.44% 1.01% 2.83%

0.67% 1.41% 3.43% 0.00% 0.61% 2.02%

intra-clausal zero total word order response errors 0.67% 1.41% 2.22% 1.33% 0.20% 1.01%

4.67% 9.56% 12.73% 21.21% 17.98% 25.25% 0.44% 2.22% 0.81% 3.03% 2.83% 8.89%

152

Noriko Kurihara, Kei Kawanishi and Kiyo Sakamoto

Table 13.3 Results of the elicitation test pre-test

High-proficiency group Mid-proficiency group Low-proficiency group

post-test

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

9.80 9.64 9.76

0.41 0.55 0.50

9.93 9.94 9.79

0.25 0.24 0.48

Elicitation test Table 13.3 shows the number of correct answers out of ten questions (mean and standard deviation) for each group on both tests. The relative pronoun uses were categorized as correct or incorrect according to the MAP concept. Namely, if the clause depicted the picture correctly with the basic meaning-based word order of the English sentence structure, and if the relative pronoun case was appropriate, the sentence was regarded as correct; otherwise, it was regarded as incorrect. Minor errors such as misspelling or wrong tense form were ignored. Correct answers were scored as one and wrong answers as zero. Most students had perfect or nearly perfect scores in both the tests. The results of the ANOVA found no interaction effect between the tests and the groups, but the main effect of the test was F(1, 191) = 5.96. There was a significant difference between the tests at the p < 0.05 level; that is, student performance significantly improved on the post-test, although no significant difference was found between groups. Next, we looked at how students used relative pronouns to answer the questions. Figure 13.1 shows which relative pronoun cases students used in each sentence where a specific pronoun case was expected. In both the pre-test and post-test, more than 95% of the students used which S and who as intended. Conversely, where which O and whom were expected, many employed which S or who instead. Regarding whose, the majority of the students used it properly but the rest used who instead. Thus, several students used nominative cases where other cases were required. However, a change was also found between the pre-test and post-test. Figure 13.1 shows a transition in students’ use of nominative, objective, and possessive cases in the relative clauses. The correct use of objective cases increased substantially on the post-test: proper use of whom increased by approximately 50% and of which O and whose by nearly 30%. The size of these gains suggests that the MAP instruction with graphic organizers may have contributed to these improvements. Next, we examined the change in relative pronoun uses in each group between the pre-test and post-test. Where which O was intended, all groups exhibited a similar transition from the nominative case toward the objective case, though the high-proficiency group showed a slightly greater change than the other groups. Also, the correct use of whom increased by a greater amount in the high-proficiency

objective

nominative

pre who

post

which S

pre

Figure 13.1 Elicitation test results

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

post which O possessive

pre

post whom none

pre

post

wrong

pre whose

post

154

Noriko Kurihara, Kei Kawanishi and Kiyo Sakamoto

group (from 45% to 70%) than in the middle (48% to 61%) and low (36% to 52%) groups. However, regarding whose, the middle group showed the greatest improvement (62% to 77%), compared to a 7% increase in the other groups. In addition to the general changes in relative pronoun use, we analyzed the problems in the incorrect sentences. Two main error types connected to relative clauses were found:2 (1) problems with using appropriate relative pronouns or cases and (2) problems with understanding the concept and use of relative clauses. Following are examples of the frequent wrong answers in each category (the words in italics were student-produced). Category 1: “Mr. Jackson is the teacher which is liked by all the students”. The relative pronoun is incorrect because the antecedent is personal. Mistakes of this type were relatively few in number, and on the post-test the same students wrote appropriate relative pronouns. “I know a girl who mother is scientist”. Such a type of mistake where the possessive whose is needed was common on the pre-test. A few students still had this problem on the post-test. Category 2: “Mr. Jackson is the teacher that all the students like him”; “Kate likes the cake which Yoshiko made it”; “I know a girl that her mother is a scientist”. The writers who made these mistakes seemed to have difficulty in understanding the difference between relative pronouns and conjunctions. There were eight errors of this sort in the pre-test; all students who produced such errors corrected them in the post-test. The MAP instruction seemed to help these students to understand relative pronouns adequately.

Composition test Unlike the other two formats, this test did not prompt students to use relative pronouns; the students who did use relative pronouns decided to use them spontaneously. Therefore, the kind and frequency of relative pronouns used in this test illustrate whether the students’ tendencies changed following MAP instruction. Table 13.4 shows that the number of relative clauses produced on the pre-test and post-test varied by group. In this test, the number of relative clauses with appropriate pronouns and word order was counted, and minor errors such as misspelling and wrong tense form were ignored. The total number of relative pronouns produced by the three groups increased from 164 to 218. Since the total number of words written also increased (from 8,601 to 10,793), a simple comparison would be inappropriate; however, the frequency of relative clauses also increased slightly, from 19.1 to 20.2 per 1,000 words. The middle and low groups showed larger increases than the highproficiency group. Mid- and Low-proficiency classes showed greater increase (from 55 to 77, and from 38 to 63, respectively) than that of high-proficiency class (from 71 to 78).

MAP Grammar and relative clauses

155

Table 13.4 Number and frequency of proper relative clauses used on the composition test time

proficiency

PRE

High Mid Low total per 1,000 words POST High Mid Low total per 1,000 words

which S who

which O whom whose total per 1,000 words

36 31 14 81 9.4 30 38 29 97 9.0

9 5 7 21 2.4 18 15 16 49 4.5

25 16 16 57 6.6 29 22 17 68 6.3

0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 1 0.1

1 3 1 5 0.6 0 2 1 3 0.3

71 55 38 164 – 78 77 63 218 –

24.0 19.6 13.4 19.1 – 21.4 22.1 17.2 20.2 –

The most frequently produced relative pronoun was which S, followed by who, on both the pre-test and post-test for all groups, except that the low-proficiency group used who more often than which S on the pre-test. Which O ranked third for all groups and had the greatest increase (from 21 to 49 uses) between tests. Whom appeared just one time, on one post-test, and relative clauses with whose were rare. As for incorrect production of relative clauses, there were 30 such occurrences on the pre-test and 34 on the post-test. There were few inappropriate uses of relative pronouns or cases. Some low-proficiency students made word order errors within relative clauses, such as “the village who live with Momotaro” or “Kibidango is food which can become friendly other person and animal”. Some clauses had an excessive subject, such as “a boy that he was born from peach” and “Momotaro that it is one of [the] tales”. Meanwhile, others lacked a necessary verb: “a man whose name Momotaro”, or “white rice cake which very sweet”.

Discussion MAP Instruction’s effects on students of various English proficiency levels On each of the three tests, students of all groups improved significantly when retested. Therefore, in response to Research Question 1, we can conclude that the MAP instruction on relative clauses was effective for all three proficiency levels. There were also some distinctions between the groups’ results. On the translation test, the middle group (420 to 430 on the TOEIC) made especially noteworthy gains, putting a statistically significant gap between itself and the lowproficiency group. This group may have been at the most optimal readiness level

156

Noriko Kurihara, Kei Kawanishi and Kiyo Sakamoto

for acquiring new knowledge of a complex grammatical item, although specific inferences are difficult due to the lack of controls in this study. On the elicitation test, close examination of student performance found two main types of errors: failure to use appropriate relative pronouns or cases and confusion between conjunctions and relative pronouns. On the post-test, most of those errors were corrected; a few students still made errors of the former category but none in the latter category. MAP instruction thus seems to have contributed to the basic understanding and production of relative clauses. On the composition test, the increase in the production of relative clauses was more prominent in the two lower groups than in the high-proficiency group. This may be due to the ceiling effect; the most proficient students may have already used relative pronouns sufficiently before instruction. In contrast, the MAP instruction with graphic organizers seems to have a positive effect on the spontaneous production of relative clauses by middle or lower-level students. We could also see different kinds of errors by different proficiency groups. On the post-test, two high-level students wrote sentences with too many relative clauses. Meanwhile, some students in the low-proficiency group attempted to construct relative clauses but committed errors in word order. In contrast to the elicitation test, the number of errors did not decrease on the composition test. It does appear that the students who made errors were encouraged and motivated to try using relative clauses after the MAP instruction.

MAP instruction’s effects on the use of different relative pronouns As for Research Question 2, whether the treatment affected the proper use of different relative pronouns, the translation test results indicated that the use of all relative pronouns improved similarly. However, minor differences between performance using subjective and objective relative pronouns may indicate that a different outcome might have been obtained had the samples or the study design been different. The results of the elicitation test indicated that the majority of students used which S and who properly on both the pre-test and post-test. Several students made errors with which O on the pre-test, but the number of errors decreased on the post-test. A similar tendency, though of lesser degree, was found with whom and whose. This indicates that the MAP instruction with graphic organizers contributed to students’ proper use of a wider variety of relative pronouns. The magnitude of the influence varied by group. The high-proficiency group showed the greatest impact with regard to the use of whom, whereas the middle group had the greatest increase in proper use of whose. This result might imply that the MAP instruction performed a different scaffolding function depending on students’ level of readiness. The results of the composition test, especially the absence of whom and whose, show some striking differences from the results of the other two tests. There was only one occurrence of whom on any post-test, and the number of appearances of whose decreased from five to three. This virtually total avoidance of two relative

MAP Grammar and relative clauses

157

pronouns occurred even though the average percentage of correct answers on the post-test was over 90% for both whom and whose. On the elicitation test, student accuracy was 62.0% for whom and 79.7% for whose. In particular, the proper use of whom on the elicitation test increased by about 50% between the pre-test and post-test. It would be interesting to investigate why Japanese EFL learners avoid using certain cases of relative pronouns when they are not prompted or asked to use them. At the same time, a drastic increase of the use of which O by all the three groups parallels the results of the elicitation test. The MAP instruction seems to have had varying effects on the production of different types of relative clauses on the composition test.

Conclusion This study explored the potential value of MAP instruction with a graphic organizer in familiarizing Japanese EFL students with the use of relative clauses. Our original goal was to enable students to comprehend the structure of relative clauses so that they could convey their ideas through English sentences with compound structures. The MAP instruction seems to have contributed to the basic understanding and production of relative clauses in this study. Learners at three different proficiency levels all improved their production of error-free relative clauses, although some specific effects varied by student level. It seems that explicit grammatical knowledge and a limited amount of pattern practice might, by themselves, be insufficient to equip EFL learners to voluntarily produce certain unfamiliar forms, such as some cases of relative pronouns. The results suggest the need for further investigation of the optimum application of a promising PG such as MAP while considering the various needs of EFL learners and elucidating the essential elements of writing in a foreign language.

Notes 1 Students were taught that whom was the most proper objective pronoun, but in this study, both whom and who were treated as equally correct by the teacher and the raters. 2 Another type of error resulted from misunderstanding the pictures’ meaning. Since these errors are not related to a proper understanding of relative pronouns or word order, we will not deal with this type of error here.

References Cho, M., & Lee, O. (2016). Strategy, affect, and L2 ability in integrated writing. English Teaching, 71(2), 87–109. doi:10.15858/engtea.71.2.201606.87 DelRose, L. N. (2011). Investigating the Use of Graphic Organizers for Writing. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Louisiana State University, Lousiana. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL realization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 432–469.

158

Noriko Kurihara, Kei Kawanishi and Kiyo Sakamoto

Hansen-Strain, L., & Strain, J. (1989). Variation in the relative clause of Japanese learners. JALT Journal, 11(2), 211–237. Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99. Suzuki, A., Saito, T., & Awazu, S. (2008). Graphic display of linguistic information in English as a Foreign Language reading. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 591–616. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00150.x

Appendix

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT (HOW)

I

have

a friend

WHO

DOES (IS)

who

lives

WHERE

WHO(M)/ WHAT (HOW)

WHEN

WHEN

WHERE

in London

Figure 13.2 A graphic organizer shown to help learners understand relative clauses

HOW, WHY WHO

DOES (IS)

WHO(M)/ WHAT (HOW)

I

have

a friend

who

lives

WHERE, WHEN

in London

Figure 13.3 A graphic organizer to help learners fill in the slots of their MAP worksheet

14 Voices from ‘practitioners’ A collaborative exploration of MAP Grammar in an EFL classroom Yoshitaka Kato, Hironori Watari and Francesco Bolstad A PG realizes its true value when learners as well as teachers find it useful for their language learning and teaching needs. MAP Grammar is no exception. In fact, previous studies which have examined the effects of introducing MAP Grammar in language classrooms have revealed positive gains in the productive skills and elicited favorable comments from EFL learners (e.g., Bolstad, Kanamaru, & Tajino, 2010; Tajino, 2008; Watari et al., 2012). Most of these studies, however, involved relatively short-term experimental studies and did not investigate how this new grammatical framework could have a long-term influence on language learning and teaching. Given that MAP Grammar has been proposed as a guiding rationale for course development (Chapter 9 in this volume), its impact needs to be further explored in the form of a longitudinal classroom study. To this end, this chapter reports on a semester-long practice conducted in an EFL university classroom where learners as well as their teacher jointly explored the possibilities of MAP Grammar. This collaborative exploration by all the participants in the classroom was considered to resonate with the principles of Exploratory Practice (EP) (e.g., Allwright, 2003, 2005). Encapsulated by the concept practitioners, learners as well as teachers can collaboratively interpret the puzzles that arise in their classroom (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Our study took this EP approach and described the voices in an EFL classroom, which we hoped could elucidate promising chalkface applications of the MAP Grammar. In this chapter, we will first describe the theoretical framework of EP-based classroom research. Then, after a description of EP methods, the results obtained from multimodal data (e.g., reaction papers and interviews) will be interpreted. Finally, we will discuss the significance of longitudinal studies and what can be learnt regarding the effective use of the MAP Grammar.

Relationships among class participants As one of the theoretical foundations of the EP philosophy, relationships among participants in the classroom need to be discussed. For example, in a solo teaching situation (i.e., not a team-taught class), participants in the language classroom are traditionally referred to as teacher and learner. However, the

Voices from ‘practitioners’ 161 relationship between classroom participants might be described in several different ways. For example: Relationship 1. teacher – teachee Relationship 2. teacher – learner Relationship 3. teacher-as-learner – learner-as-teacher (i.e., co-researchers) These distinctions are not entirely abstract, as how we represent relationships to ourselves often shapes how we interact in the real world. The first relationship divides the role of class participants most clearly: a person who teaches and others who are taught. The term teachee was originally coined by Widdowson (1983) with irony to draw attention to the predominantly passive role played by students. In contrast, the term ‘learner’ in the second relationship, which is the most common description, no longer implies a passive connotation. Still, however, the role of teacher and student can be considered divided, for the predominant role of ‘teacher’ is to teach and ‘learner’ is to learn. In contrast to the first two, the third relationship makes the divided roles most blurry or even merge. In this representation, a teacher-as-learner tries to learn from students (e.g., from their performance and utterances) and reflect on what he or she learned from their teaching. Learners-as-teachers act as providers, not receivers, who give hints on better learning and teaching in the classroom. Learners in this relationship are also expected to explore their own questions which occur to their mind. In this type of classroom, teachers are encouraged to become learners and learners to become teachers, thus, fostering an image of them as “equal partners in researching their own classroom lives” (Tajino & Smith, 2005, p. 449). In other words, the relationship among the class participants can be expressed as co-researchers (Allwright, 2003; Pinter, Mathew, & Smith, 2016). This is one of the underlying tenets of EP.

Exploratory practice EP is an attempt to “integrate pedagogy and research (Allwright, 1993) for and by learners and teachers” (Hanks, 2014, p. 117). The principle description of EP was introduced by Allwright in 2003 (pp. 127–128, italics in original): Exploratory Practice involves practitioners (e.g., preferably teachers and learners together) working to understand: (a) what they want to understand, following their own agendas; (b) not necessarily in order to bring about change; (c) not primarily by changing; (d) but by using normal pedagogic practices as investigative tools, so that working for understanding is part of the teaching and learning, not extra to it; (e) in a way that does not lead to ‘burn-out’, but that is indefinitely sustainable; in order to contribute to: (f) teaching and learning themselves; (g) professional development, both individual and collective. As emphasized earlier, all the class participants are expected to develop as practitioners (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). In an EP-based classroom, class participants,

162

Yoshitaka Kato, Hironori Watari and Francesco Bolstad

including both learners and teachers, jointly explore the puzzles they encounter in the classroom in order to maintain and enhance their quality of classroom life (Gieve & Miller, 2006). It needs to be noted that, in this collaborative process, EP emphasizes the statements (d) and (e); teachers should not be put under excessive burden by doing EP. This principle derives from reflection on prior styles of classroom research (i.e., scientific research and action research) that made them unsustainable (Yanase, 2008).

Eliciting classroom ‘voices’ While the EP philosophy may sound attractive to practitioners, they often realize how difficult it is to build such a collaborative atmosphere in the classroom. In fact, in order to facilitate smooth communication among class participants, we need some specific tools to elicit honest comments on the class being explored. One such tool adopted in previous studies has been reaction paper (RP) (e.g., Kawada, 2014; Slimani-Rolls, 2003). The approach is simple but effective: At the end of every class, students are given a square-cut piece of paper and asked to write what they learned or could not understand in the class as well as their requests for subsequent classes. They are allowed to write the paper in anonymity. Then, in the next class, their teacher gives short answers to the comments, thus students can also hear what other students think about the class. Given the complex nature of reticence among Japanese EFL learners (e.g., Harumi, 2011), this form of sharing ideas in the classroom was considered appropriate in the target classroom of the present study. Furthermore, in order to complement RP, semi-structured interviews were also conducted at the end of the semester. With these tools, we have attempted to build a mechanism for eliciting and recording the ‘voices’ of class participants.

Background of the study Participants The participants were 39 students and one teacher (i.e., the first author) in a private university in Japan. Out of the 39 students, 32 were men and seven were women. All of the students were majoring in marketing. Judging from their daily performance and the results of various tests conducted in the class, their English proficiency was estimated as equivalent to Level A1 – A2 on the CEFR scale. As this English class was mandatory, it was assumed that overall motivation to study English was not high. The class mainly aimed at improving academic reading skills. The textbook was Discoveries: Strategies for Academic Reading (Ohkado, Laurence, & Smith, 2013). This text was prescribed for all first-year students at the university. One of the difficulties this class had was the gap between students’ proficiency and the level of the text; students had to read passages on academic topics although they had a relatively limited knowledge of vocabulary and grammar. The present study therefore hypothesized that MAP Grammar would assist the class to bridge the gap between students’ proficiency and the academic level of the English.

Voices from ‘practitioners’ 163 Shared puzzle The puzzle explored in this study was “How can practitioners in an EFL classroom, including students and their teacher, make the best use of the MAP Grammar for reading English?”1 In the previous semester, MAP Grammar was intermittently introduced in this class. At that time, students and their teacher felt that the MAP Grammar could be immediately useful for writing in English, but not for reading. This was partly because the teacher as well as students had little experience of adopting MAP Grammar in a reading class, but the following comment from one of the students implied that it might take more time to get accustomed to reading English with MAP Grammar: “The MAP Grammar helped me a lot with understanding English. But, I haven’t mastered it yet”. Thus, the stage was set for exploring the long-term process of understanding and utilizing MAP Grammar in an EFL reading classroom. In contrast to previous studies that focused on productive skills (e.g., Tajino, 2008; Watari et al., 2012), our study targeted reading skills. Reading passages, especially those on academic topics, often include long and grammatically complex sentences. This indicated the necessity of using optional elements of the MAP Grammar such as α (alpha), how, and why, which was one area that few previous studies had investigated. Clarifying the use of these optional elements was considered to be the key to better understand the new grammar.

Data collection The study was conducted during the fall semester of 2016. The data collected consisted of RP and interviews. RP recorded “learners’ written reactions” (SlimaniRolls, 2003, p. 226). Using a few minutes at the end of almost every class (i.e., ten times in total), students were asked to write down their opinions about MAP Grammar. These comments were originally written in Japanese but later translated into English by the authors. In addition to RP, three students were randomly chosen from the class of 39 students to participate in an interview session conducted after the thirteenth class. The semi-structured interviews were recorded with the written consent of the participants. It was also explained that the interview would not affect their class grades and the data might be used for publications in anonymity.

Results and discussion: description of the EP process Phase 1: Teacher guidance This section reports on the collaborative process of EP. The class met once per week on Tuesdays, and each session lasted for 90 minutes. Over the 10-week

164

Yoshitaka Kato, Hironori Watari and Francesco Bolstad

period, MAP Grammar was introduced to the class for reading academic English. Since students had almost no idea about how to use the new grammar, during the first few weeks, the teacher took the initiative in showing a model use of the MAP Grammar for reading as in Figures 14.1 and 14.2. The teacher explained, for instance, the use of optional elements such as α (e.g., for conjunctions or adverbs) and when to use multiple lines in one sentence (e.g., for compound sentences or sentences with relative pronouns). As in Figure 14.2, when passages are organized into the MAP Grammar, their structures are visualized and considered easier for students to understand and for teachers to explain even grammatically complex sentences. During this period (i.e., the first few weeks), students generally reported positive comments regarding instructions with MAP Grammar. One student stated, for example, “By using the MAP Grammar, long sentences can be organized into small parts, which helps me motivate myself to read English, and I can actually understand it! I hope this style of instruction will continue”. Similar to the earlier statement, other students left positive comments, with insightful caveats. “MAP Grammar makes English very easy to understand, but it does so when I know the words used in the passage”. “Thanks to MAP Grammar, I feel I am becoming able to read English better. I think even more so when I have a dictionary!” These comments suggested that they realized the importance of learning vocabulary or using dictionaries in combination with MAP Grammar, which was not what the authors had expected. Although the teacher had repeatedly mentioned the importance of learning vocabulary in the previous semester, students noticed the necessity by themselves when using MAP Grammar. Another advantage of this approach, as seen from the instructor’s perspective, was the way in which it freed the teacher to focus on paradigmatic aspects of language (see Tajino, Chapter 1 in this volume), which assisted him in detecting important points in the reading passage. For example, when preparing for the material shown in Figure 14.2, the teacher noticed that the passage included a lot of sentences with relative pronouns, which led him to make the decision to set the grammatical item as a key point in this passage. In addition to providing support for text analysis, MAP Grammar also assisted the teacher in a comprehension check of reading passages. In a reading class, especially in EFL countries such as Japan, many students and teachers still favor translation of sentences into their mother tongue. Translation can be useful for bottom-up understanding, but it takes time and sometimes makes the class boring, especially for low-proficiency students. In this sense, the class could skip the translating process by using MAP Grammar and focusing on what needs to be

tried to help

taught

succeeded in

Many people

They

She

became able to speak

was found

hadn't had

she

She

had been strapped

The miserable girl

had been locked

was

She

Figure 14.1 A model use of the MAP Grammar

and

until

and

came from

Does (Is)

An answer (to this question)

Who

begin a normal life.

learning many English words

her / various social skills, including language.

her /

any chance (to learn language)

the victim of one of the severest cases of child abuse

the sad story of Genie (not her real name).

Whom/What (How)

in her bedroom

to a potty chair

Where

in 1970.

for about thirteen years.

in history.

When

in small sentences.

How

Why

water

we

that

but

how much energy it takes

those bottles of water

to move

wasteful,

bottled water

waste.

Whom/What (How)

must also think about

is stored in

are

don't like

who

the plastic bottles, although recyclable,

bring up

many people

Obviously

that

is

The first point

Does (Is)

Figure 14.2 ‘Visualizing’ the passage with MAP Grammar

2

1

Who

from place to place.

Where

When

How

Why

Voices from ‘practitioners’ 167 However, in practice, what “democracy” means varies among democratic systems. who does where

Figure 14.3 Saving time during comprehension checks with the use of MAP Grammar

focused on in the lesson. For instance, when faced with the following sentence in Figure 14.3, the class concentrated on the use of what as a relative pronoun rather than on translating the sentence into Japanese. Students were just asked to identify which part fell into which element of MAP Grammar (e.g., ‘varies’ as the does(is) element), which not only assisted their reading process but also saved precious time in the class. Thus, suggesting that the purpose is not to translate but to understand meaning by parsing the sentence, MAP Grammar could be an effective tool for checking comprehension efficiently in a reading class.

Phase 2: No teacher guidance The class gradually moved on to the next phase where students themselves read English with MAP Grammar, without the guidance of the teacher. For example, they analyzed sentences in the passage by using elements of MAP Grammar (i.e., α, who, does (is) . . .) printed on blank paper. However, this phase was often challenging for students who had to work through trial and error to develop the competence needed to effectively use MAP Grammar. Here is a selection of the comments found on RPs from the students during this period: “I couldn’t understand where to divide each sentence”. “It is useful when the teacher uses MAP Grammar, but I cannot use it by myself”. Regarding the first comment, other students specified the difficulties as follows: (a) “For example, in the case of ‘instead of’, it is difficult for me to identify which words go together and which words don’t”. (b) “Should I make a division for the modified parts of a sentence?” The earlier comment (a) dealt with the issue of collocation. Though ‘instead of’ is usually understood as a set phrase, expressions such as ‘look at’ and ‘go to’ confounded most of the students (and the teacher). In order to further investigate this issue, in the interview session, the authors asked two of the interviewees about how the sentence “I went to the supermarket to buy some milk” can be put into the elements of MAP Grammar. Here are their answers (Figure 14.4). While Student A regarded ‘went to’ as a set phrase, Student B did not. Their answers seemed to reflect their views on English, or their ‘inter-grammar’. Interestingly, regarding the treatment of ‘to buy some milk’ as well, whereas Student A

168

Yoshitaka Kato, Hironori Watari and Francesco Bolstad

Student A:

I who

Student B: I went who does

went to the supermarket does what to buy some milk. does what to the supermarket to buy some milk. where why

Figure 14.4 Different views on English revealed through MAP Grammar

used the second line of MAP Grammar, Student B did not and used the optional element of why. Their comments and examples thus showed individual differences with regard to their preference and analysis of English language. While these differences may incite curiosity from a linguistic viewpoint, MAP Grammar, in fact, recognizes both viewpoints, as long as they are understandable and useful for the practitioner, since it is, first of all, a PG. As shown in this example, students’ reactions and analyses triggered their own and their teacher’s reexamination of their target language. The comment (b) also pointed out another significant issue when utilizing MAP Grammar: gradual ‘disappearance’ of PG. MAP Grammar is used by the practitioner in the classroom as a scaffold for learning and teaching English. At the same time, however, as Yanase (2012) pointed out by borrowing the expression from Wittgenstein, we need to eventually “throw away the ladder after we have climbed up it”. Surely, native speakers or proficient users of English would not use MAP Grammar cognitively in their daily life. Whether they become unconsciously skilled in its use or they do not have to use it, the grammar eventually needs to ‘disappear’ from learners’ conscious minds in the end. In this regard, the comment (b) offers a possible clue to understanding the process of “throwing away the ladder” – that is, not slashing the modified parts can be a first step in the disappearance of MAP Grammar from the learners’ conscious minds. For example, the sentence, “The first point many people bring up is waste” can be analyzed as follows (Figure 14.5). Although the sentence can be explained step-by-step, as in Pattern A, proficient learners would regard it as in Pattern B by chunking the who element together. As this example as well as the student comment (b) suggests, the users gradually are expected to use less and less lines and elements of MAP Grammar, which can possibly lead to the disappearance of the PG from the learners’ conscious mind in the end. Thus, in this second phase (i.e., without teacher guidance), the difficulties students mentioned in the class gave the instructor a lot of hints on the use of MAP Grammar and its influence on curriculum development. Not all the students could master the use of MAP Grammar during this period, but at

Voices from ‘practitioners’ 169

Pattern A:

The first point who many people who

Pattern B:

The first point (many people bring up) who

is is

waste. what

bring up does is is

waste. what

Figure 14.5 One possible path for the disappearance of MAP Grammar from learners’ conscious minds

least, they attempted to do so as practitioners of English learning through their struggle in the semester-long trial; their final comments on RP confirm this interpretation: “Compared to the last time, I was able to understand MAP Grammar better. One of the keys is to write Japanese meanings under English words. I would like to learn how to use it more”. “I think I am able to utilize MAP Grammar much better than when I began to use it”. It may take time and effort to master it (and possibly internalize it to the level of unconscious proficiency), but the collaborative EP among class participants facilitated the process of interpreting and utilizing the new grammar for their learning and teaching. Thus, this kind of bottom-up and long-term study may identify areas where, and ways in which, the use of the MAP Grammar can be beneficial in the language classroom that may not be identified by more quantitative short-term studies.

Concluding remarks This chapter has reported on the process of understanding and utilizing MAP Grammar in an EFL reading classroom. More specifically, in the framework of EP, the puzzle (i.e., How can practitioners in an EFL classroom make the best use of MAP Grammar for reading English?) was collaboratively investigated through the comments on RP and the follow-up interviews. Given that the values of a PG should be decided by its users (i.e., learners and teachers), positive comments and attitudes seen over the semester-long period suggest that MAP Grammar is promising in this sense. In the process of mastering it, however, the participants seemed to create their own interpretation of MAP Grammar, and clarifying this dynamic ‘inter-grammar’ may provide a new insight on language development.

170

Yoshitaka Kato, Hironori Watari and Francesco Bolstad

Thus, the final part of this chapter suggests the internalization process of the MAP Grammar as a promising area for further long-term investigation.

Acknowledgements Our heartfelt appreciation goes to every ‘practitioner’ in the collaborative EP classroom. We are also grateful to Professor Akira Tajino and Professor David Dalsky for their insightful comments and warm encouragement throughout the study.

Note 1 Although this study explored a ‘how’ question, EP usually insists that puzzles should be framed with ‘why’ instead of ‘how’ to avoid encouraging participants to pursue for “the kind of ‘technicist’ solutions that merely scratch the surface of our practice” (Hanks, 2017, p. 244). In this sense, our practice was not perfectly EP-like, but still, the primary motivation of the study (i.e., to explore mutual understanding of MAP Grammar among the class participants, regarding all of them as ‘co-researchers’) shares the underlying philosophy of EP.

References Allwright, D. (1993). Integrating “research” and “pedagogy”: Appropriate criteria and practical possibilities. In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers develop teachers research (pp. 125–135). London: Heinemann. Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141. doi:10.1191/ 1362168803lr118oa Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 9–31. doi:10.2307/3588450 Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bolstad, F., Kanamaru, T., & Tajino, A. (2010). Laying the groundwork for ongoing learning: A scaffolded approach to language education in Japanese elementary schools and beyond. Paper presented at Interspeech 2010 Satellite Workshop on Second Language Studies, Japan. Retrieved from http://www.gavo.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ L2WS2010/papers/L2WS2010_P1-05.pdf Gieve, S., & Miller, I. K. (2006). What do we mean by “Quality of Classroom Life”? In S. Gieve & I. K. Miller (Eds.), Understanding the language classroom (pp. 18–46). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hanks, J. (2014). “Education is not just teaching”: Learner thoughts on exploratory practice. ELT Journal, 69(2), 117–128. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu063 Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Harumi, S. (2011). Classroom silence: Voices from Japanese EFL learners. ELT Journal, 65(3), 260–269. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq046 Kawada, K. (2014). Shitsuteki chosa wo toshite “kyoshitsu seikatsu no shitsu” wo takameru tankyuteki jissen [An exploratory practice to develop “the quality of

Voices from ‘practitioners’ 171 life in the language classroom” through qualitative research]. CELES Journal, 43, 311–318. Ohkado, M., Laurence, D., & Smith, C. (2013). Discoveries: Strategies for academic reading. Tokyo: Kinseido. Pinter, A., Mathew, R., & Smith, R. (2016). Children and teachers as co-researchers in Indian primary English classrooms. London: British Council. Slimani-Rolls, A. (2003). Exploring a world of paradoxes: An investigation of group work. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 221–239. doi:10.1191/1362168803lr123oa Tajino, A. (2008). Atarashii gakkobunpou no kochiku ni mukete: Eibun sakusei ni okeru imijun shido no kouka kenshou [Constructing a new English school grammar: Testing the effect of the order of meanings in English composition]. In S. Koyama, W. Nishibori, & A. Tajino (Eds.), Heisei 20 nendo eigo no jugyo jissen kenkyu [The 2008 practitioner research on English teaching] (pp. 8–21). Nara: Nara Women’s University International Exchange Center. Tajino, A., & Smith, C. (2005). Exploratory practice and soft systems methodology. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 448–469. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr178xx Watari, H., Hosogoshi, K., Kato, Y., Kanamaru, T., Takahashi, S., & Tajino, A. (2012). Bogo wo katsuyou shita eigo shido: Koukou no eisakubun jugyo ni okeru imijun no kouka kensho [Teaching English with mother tongue support: Testing the effect of the order of meanings in English composition at high school]. Studies in English Teaching and Learning in East Asia, 4, 33–49. Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yanase, Y. (2008). Exploratory practice no tokushitsu to “rikai” gainen ni kansuru rironteki kousatsu: Akushon risachi wo koete [Exploratory practice and the concept of understanding]. The Chugoku Academic Society of English Language Education Kenkyukiyo, 38, 71–80. Yanase, Y. (2012). Komyunikeishon nouryoku to gakushu eibunpo [Communicative competence and pedagogical grammar]. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Gakushu eibunpo wo minaoshitai [Rethinking about pedagogical grammar] (pp. 52–65). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Part III

MAP Grammar Practice reports and lesson plans

15 Developing a base of English expressions using MAP Grammar Tomoko Jojima, Hisae Oyabu and Yoko Jinnouchi

The following lessons were conducted in English classes at a junior high school in Saga Prefecture, Japan. MAP Grammar was introduced in the classroom in order to achieve the goal established by the prefecture; namely, cultivating students who can ‘understand someone’s intentions and ideas, and convey their own opinions in English’. At the time MAP instruction was introduced students were unable to express their own ideas clearly. For writing tasks, students would often ask and rely upon their teachers to translate full sentences. The Norm Reference Test (or NRT, a standardized test overseen by the Tokyo-based Toshobunka company) showed that students in the prefecture were below the national average in writing ability. While students had the motivation to write or speak in English, they were lacking the necessary vocabulary and were unaccustomed to the word order of English. To address these issues, MAP Grammar instruction (and the who – does – what/who(m) – where – when structure) was introduced as a method that was both easy to understand for beginning learners and also easy to teach. The activities that follow (Figure 15.1) make use of MAP Grammar notebooks (known as Imijun notebooks in Japan). MAP instruction was typically carried out in the first 15 minutes of each (45-minute) lesson, following the procedure in Figure 15.2. It was felt that the most appropriate time to begin MAP Grammar instruction was six months into the first year of the students’ English study. At this point, the students would have become familiar with the pronunciation of English, and be able to read sentences from the textbook relatively smoothly (it was also assumed that for the first six months, students would tend to remember sentences through audio input). Instruction was predominantly carried out with spoken sentences

Age/grade

13–15 years old (1st–3rd year junior high school)

Level

Lower intermediate (CEFR A1-2)

MAP task time

15 minutes, every lesson / 50 minutes, one off

Preparation time

Around 30 minutes

Resources/materials

Adequate classroom space, blackboard, Imijun (MAP Grammar) magnets, Imijun (MAP Grammar) notebooks

Figure 15.1 Background information about the class

176

Tomoko Jojima, Hisae Oyabu and Yoko Jinnouchi

Time (minutes) 1

2 5

Procedure Have the students repeat the MAP Grammar meaning-unit order (who – does – what/who(m) – where – when) aloud in their native language (Japanese). Have the students read English sentences aloud from a handout, and check the Japanese meaning verbally. Have the students write the English sentences into the appropriate meaning unit boxes in their MAP Grammar notebooks (see figure X, below) • Extra problems are prepared for students that finish earlier.

Figure 15.2 MAP Grammar procedure

delivered by the teacher, maximizing input, before grammar explanations were provided according to MAP Grammar. Students would also be given opportunities to produce their own sentences with the aid of a dictionary if necessary. This instruction was carried out over the three-year period of junior high school instruction and has played a significant role in developing students’ productive ability in spoken and written English.

Lesson objectives The overall aim of the MAP Grammar instruction introduced here is to help students form a ‘base’ of English expressions or a repertoire of phrases that they may readily produce. Our students were previously quite capable of learning large amounts of vocabulary, yet still encountered difficulty putting them into sentences. The MAP Grammar notebooks (known as Imijun note in Japan) played a key role in instruction. The 15-minute activity described earlier (Table 15.2) was used to reinforce English word order through consistent practice. MAP Grammar instruction was also used as scaffolding for students when developing (speaking or writing) their own expressions.

Writing task In addition to the 15-minute drills conducted at the start of each lesson, many lessons also used MAP Grammar for productive tasks. One such example is the following task in which students used mind mapping to organize the content of textbook passages and then introduce the characters that appear in the textbook using their MAP Grammar notebooks (see Figure 15.3). Following the MAP Grammar order in their notebooks reduced the cognitive burden on students, allowing them to conjugate verbs more accurately.

Developing a base of English expressions 177

student 13 years old

Green eye

Talks a lot

color Brown hair

Judy’s

MATT

friend Knows a lot about

From

English

England

Holmes fan

Holmes

Figure 15.3 Mind map of the textbook content (Adapted from a student’s work)

Using two students (A and B) as an example, we will compare productive work for the task both with and without the use of the MAP Grammar notebook.

Without MAP Grammar notebooks Student A and B completed the mind map and then wrote about the textbook characters freely. They did not use the MAP Grammar notebook for the following. Student A: This is Matt. He uncle in England. He studies 13 years old. He is a Judy friend. He is a Sherlock Holmes fan. He know a lot about Holmes. He speaks English. He is a student. He has green eyes. Student A seems to have understood the textbook content, although the sentences produced have missing or incorrect verbs, or improperly conjugated verbs (underlined). Student B: This is Matt. He from London. He is a student. Matt is a Sherlock Holmes fan. Matt is Judy friend. Student B has produced less that Student A, perhaps because of an inability to understand the textbook content. Student B’s sentences consistently employ the copula, with no other verb use. There is also an instance of a missing verb (underlined).

With MAP Grammar notebooks The sentences shown next are the students’ work on the same task, this time using the MAP Grammar notebook. Student A: This is Matt. He has brown hair. He’s Judy’s friend. His uncle is in England. He speaks English. He’s 13 years old. He’s a student. He’s a Holmes fan.

178

Tomoko Jojima, Hisae Oyabu and Yoko Jinnouchi Student B: This is Matt. He is from London. He likes Sherlock Holmes. He is cool. Matt is Judy’s friend.

With the MAP Grammar notebook as scaffolding, Student A’s sentences are markedly improved over the first attempt, with no errors in verb usage. Student B has also improved, although while still producing extremely simple sentences, the errors from the first attempt are no longer present.

A full lesson with MAP Grammar Step 1: MAP Grammar drill (15 minutes) The first 15 minutes of the lesson are devoted to MAP Grammar drills. These are conducted every lesson in ordered to familiarize students with the basic structure of English and to demonstrate how individual grammar structures operate within that structure (such as declarative sentences, interrogatives, negative sentences). First-year students tend to begin by rearranging their native Japanese into English word order, before completing the sentences with the appropriate English vocabulary (see Figure 15.4, and Figures 15.5 and 15.6 for examples of students’ work). This type of worksheet may be made to fit grammar points relevant to the lesson.

Figure 15.4 A MAP Grammar drill worksheet

Developing a base of English expressions 179

Figure 15.5 Writing tasks with the Imijun (MAP Grammar) notebook

Step 2: Writing on a theme A theme is provided to students, and they are expected to write in their MAP Grammar notebooks (see Figure 15.5). After about one year of practice, the majority of students are able to develop grammatical sentences without overreliance on the MAP Grammar notebook boxes (see Figure 15.6).

An example of writing on a theme: ‘Golden Week’ One class completed such an assignment on the topic of ‘Golden Week’ (a period of consecutive national holidays in Japan). The following is an example of the

180

Tomoko Jojima, Hisae Oyabu and Yoko Jinnouchi

Figure 15.6 Writing tasks with the Imijun (MAP Grammar) notebook after one year

completed work of a first-year student, six months after beginning MAP instruction (around 3.5 hours per week). I went to Oita for Golden Week. I went to Oita with my family. I visited Kuju Nature Zoo Park. I saw rabbits, goats, pigs, donkeys. I gave animals food. I gave goats milk. They were babies. I took some pictures. I love rabbits. I held a baby rabbit. It was very fun. I want to go there again!

Developing a base of English expressions 181 As can be seen from the earlier work, there are no errors with verb conjugation, nor any dropped subjects. The aforementioned was written in the MAP Grammar notebook, which helped draw attention to the necessity of both a subject ‘who’ and the verb ‘does/is’. Instruction was given to the students to ensure that they were using the past tense in the ‘does/is’ box. The steps taken to achieve the final product are outlined next.

Step 1 The students listen to a model monologue on the same theme (either audiorecorded or read aloud by the teacher). They are instructed to pay attention to what expressions are used and in what order the expressions appear. They create a mind map of the model monologue (Figure 15.7).

Step 2 Using the mind map as a guide, the students attempt to reproduce the model monologue orally (i.e., I went cycling with my father during Golden Week. We went to Nikko . . .)

Step 3 The students then develop a mind map of their own Golden Week experience (Figure 15.8). From the mind map, the students make a general outline of their Golden Week monologue (Figure 15.9).

Step 4 Using their mind maps and outlines as a guide, the students create their monologue in the MAP Grammar notebook. A native-English assistant teacher corrects the first and second drafts before the final copy is written.

Listen several times and

went cycling

make a map Father and

Went to Nikko

I

Golden Week

Figure 15.7 Mind map of the model dialogue

waterfall

182

Tomoko Jojima, Hisae Oyabu and Yoko Jinnouchi

rabbits Kuju nature zoo park

car

Gave milk Oita dear board lama goat sheep pig emu donkey etc.

The goat was pregnant free range

it was fun

feeding

pictures

Figure 15.8 A students’ Golden Week mind map

Content

Topic Going to Oita

Thoughts

Visiting Kuju Nature Zoo Park

cute goats

pictures

want to go again

feeding

gave milk

Figure 15.9 A student’s outline of the Golden Week monologue

Step 5 Students make pairs to read and comment upon each other’s work.

Points for consideration The eventual aim of this long-term instruction is to have the students be able to write well-constructed English sentences without the aid of the MAP Grammar notebooks, although the students are allowed to continue using the notebooks. Students may continue to use the books as long as they feel it necessary.

Outcomes English classes incorporating a MAP Grammar component have been conducted in Saga Prefecture since 2011. As mentioned earlier, MAP Grammar instruction begins from around the sixth month of instruction, and before this instruction, the students are given a writing test. After the first MAP Grammar

Developing a base of English expressions 183

50 40 30

Test 1

20

Test 2

10 0 Correct

Incorrect

No answer

Figure 15.10 Test results before (test 1) and after (test 2) MAP Grammar instruction

instruction, the students are given a further test. As can be seen in the example answer that follows, after MAP instruction, not only did the number of correct answers increase but also no students left any questions unanswered. In this sense, MAP Grammar instruction may be assumed to be effective at least in providing students with a framework to attempt construction of English sentences. Example test questions (Japanese meanings were also provided in each test, see results in figure 15.10): Rearrange the English so that the meaning matches the Japanese. Test 1. last Saturday/she/at the stadium/a soccer game/watched/ Test 2. play/at school/I/tennis/every day Furthermore, for students who enrolled in 2014, the scores on the NRT test a year following enrollment were above the national average in all four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), although improvement in writing was particularly remarkable.

Final comments As shown earlier, instruction incorporating MAP Grammar has been successful in Saga Prefecture. This is particularly remarkable in the Japanese context in which many of our classes have up to 40 students. While students demonstrated improvement in English skills, we would like to share a letter to a teacher from a former student one year after graduation. We feel this shows that MAP Grammar instruction was successful not only in improving students’ English language ability, but also in developing the long-lasting motivation for using English to convey their own ideas.

184

Tomoko Jojima, Hisae Oyabu and Yoko Jinnouchi

Dear Ms. Jojima, Long time no see! How are you? I am enjoying my high school life. Thank you for your letter. I was glad to read your letter. I studied English by Imijun notebook with you when I was a Kohoku JHS student. It’s a good memory for me. I want to give you this notebook. Because it may give you power. Also, I want you and my younger student to use this notebook. A year has passed since we graduated from Kohoku JHS. But I haven’t decided about my future yet. But I have many dreams. I want to be a mathematician, psychologist or a voice artist. It’s very hard. So, I have to learn many things. What’s your dream? Let me add a few words in conclusion. Please don’t forget us. When you see my notebook, please remember about us. Also, please continue to teach English kindly for students.

Acknowledgements MAP Grammar instruction in Saga Prefecture has been inspired by the work of Professor Akira Tajino and, in particular, his volume, Imijun: Eigo gakushuhou [Imijun: How to learn English] (Tokyo: Discover 21 Inc., 2011), and the Imijun note (MAP Grammar Notebooks; Osaka: Kyokuto Associates Co, Ltd., www. kyokuto-note.co.jp/special/imijun/).

16 Communication and critical thinking with MAP Grammar Hiroshi Nakagawa and Yosuke Ishii

Many university level L2 students, even after years of formal language education, still struggle to express themselves in their L2. The explanation for this difficulty is often attributed to their lack of speaking practice or insufficient knowledge. However, as long as learning grammar and practicing speaking are carried out as totally separate classroom tasks, students will continue to encounter difficulty in applying what they have learned to what they can produce. In this lesson, the instructor presents a story with MAP, and students are challenged to develop their own story along the same lines as the presented model (Figure 16.1).

Lesson objectives The main objective of this lesson is to help students express themselves verbally. At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to construct and convey an original story by employing the method introduced to them by the instructor. This series of activities is also intended to help students understand how a target form is used in context, and how to apply it in a similar or identical context. Target forms are presented through the instructor’s questions and because the target forms are presented through the instructor’s questions, students will experience a series of cognitive processes, such as observing, reasoning and communicating. Additionally, through task-based pair-work, students will also have a chance to experience, evaluate and reflect on what they have learned.

Theoretical background According to schema theory, language students are better able to comprehend English sentences by using the rhetorical structure of text (formal schema) (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983). MAP is a grammatical knowledge approach to highlighting sentence patterns, which acts to feature formal schema. It enables students to use the rhetorical structure of text in order to understand the structure of a sentence, as well as the definition of words. Additionally, the use of visual aids such as pictures and videos, assist in maintaining consistency in content schema as students actively formulate stories.

186

Hiroshi Nakagawa and Yosuke Ishii

Age/grade

About 20 years old (college students)

Level

Lower advanced (CEFR B2)

MAP task time

30 minutes in this lesson

Preparation time

30 minutes

Resources/materials Adequate classroom space, blackboard, projector and screen Figure 16.1 Learner information

For communication purposes, a single sentence rarely functions independently. Instead, sentences are linked to create a unity of communication. Spoken conversation and written paragraphs have meaning because sentences maintain unity, which helps create cohesion. Within an English paragraph, the structure, such as a main topic supported by details and examples, provides the narrative. A narrative text has the following basic components: abstract, orientation, complication, resolution, coda and composition of the episode as a whole story (De Fina & Georgakopoulou, 2012). Understanding how these basic components work together to create a narrative text helps create a unity of communication. According to Lakshmi (2012), critical thinking (CT) helps students individualize and strengthen their rational opinions, and align and support conclusions by examining relevant criteria, which encourages self-regulation. According to Tishman and Palmer (2006) CT consists of six different aspects: exploring viewpoints, reasoning, questioning and investigating; observing and describing, comparing and connecting; and finding complexity. By activating the formal schema presented by MAP, students’ attention can be drawn to specific expressions as well as produce new sentences more effectively. In this activity, the use of questions is also combined with the presentation of sentence structure in MAP. These openended wh-questions allow students to be able to produce each component in the MAP chart, which is a functional grammar application. Figure 16.2 illustrates the potential of a functional grammar approach. When speakers form a sentence in natural settings, they are often not conscious of what part of speech each word they use is playing; rather, they tend instead to be more conscious of meaning. Identifying parts of speech traditionally involves applying such grammatical terms as subject, object and complement. However, such terminology does not convey any functional information. Functional grammarians, such as de Oliveira and Schleppegrell (2015), and Knapp and Watkins (2005) use the functional grammar terms ‘participant’ for NPs, ‘process’ for VPs and ‘circumstance’ for PPs or adverbs. By contrast, semantic roles in English are given names, such as ‘agent’, ‘patient’ and ‘theme’ (Payne, 2010). However, MAP simplifies semantic roles to ‘Who, Does(Is), Whom What(How), Where, When, Why’ making them more accessible to students since each component of the sentence is explained in terms of its meaning and function

Communication and critical thinking

Who

Does (Is)

Whom

What (How)

Where

When

187

Why

Doer

Action

Receiver

Place

Time

Reason

Gayla

decided

to jog

around the park

every day

to lose some weight.

Figure 16.2 Semantic roles shown in a MAP chart

as it relates to the ideas presented in the sentence. The authors of this chapter prefer using MAP in this way, as it is easily accessible to learners, and helps to develop a functional understanding of the target form. For writers MAP’s functional approach allows for attention to be paid to the structure of not only each sentence in the text but also the entire text itself. According to Butt, Fahey, Feez and Spinks (2012), a text consists of a set of meanings that coherently fit together. MAP relates the understanding of each sentence to that of the entire text. In this way, students become aware of text types, which are traditionally classified into four different modes of discourse: narrative, descriptive, expository and persuasive all of which develop in a particular way. The activity presented in this chapter is characterized by the integration of three different theoretical contexts: use of questions, functional grammar and CT strategies. Cognitive and communicative English language skills are enhanced by MAP to support a bottom-up, language-learning approach, whereas the content schema is supported by visual aids as a top-down approach. The tasks in this activity help students learn about the structure and pattern of questioning through the use of visual images. These images are used as aids for students to develop their own questions and produce pertinent sentences to communicate information related to the images.

Procedure At the beginning of this lesson, the instructor presents a story to the students, as the lesson continues the teachers highlights how the story is organized as well as how the individual sentences which make up the story are constructed. This process will then act as a model for students to construct a completely new story based on a new series of pictures.

Steps Step 1: In random order, show a set of pictures (Figure 16.3) that describe a series of events. Show it more than one time. The pictures can be substituted for other visual aids or any set of images that meets the purpose.

188

Hiroshi Nakagawa and Yosuke Ishii

Figure 16.3 A set of a sequence of pictures. ©Ayami Amy Ichino.

Step 2: Write a few wh-questions about the content of the events presented in step 1 on the board. Q1 (Abstract): What is the event about? Q2 (Orientation): Who is the main character in the event? Where is the event held? Q3 (Complication): How does the event occur?/What does the main character do at the beginning? Q4 (Expansion): How does the event develop?/What happens next? Q5 (Resolution): How does the event end? What happens at the end? Q6 (Coda): What does the story suggest? Step 3: Ask the students to answer the questions. Using the students’ responses, write a description of the events presented in the images on the board. In Steps 2 and 3, be sure that the questions are meant to provide the answers associated with MAP so that the students are able to clearly see the MAP patterns in the sentence. Even when the students are unable to answer in a complete sentence, the teachers should encourage the students to fill out the rest of the boxes in the MAP pattern. Step 4: Tell students to complete a sentence for each image by looking at the image and then arrange sentences in sequential order to form the story. Tell students the function of each sentence, an example is provided in Figure 16.4. Step 5: Students are then to make the story into a more coherent depiction of events than presented in the pictures by including more detail. Working in groups of three or four, students are encouraged to analyze and reflect on the given sentences so as to add more detail to the story through the formulation of new MAP sentences. These new sentences should depict events that may have taken place between the sequenced pictures. This is where the students will collaborate to use their CT and through

1. Abstract—What is the story about? Who Does (Is) Whom

What Where When (How) This is a story about Hiroshi’s mistake. 2. Orientation—Information about who and where Who Does (Is) Whom What Where When (How) Hiroshi went to the library 3. Complication—How the event occurs and expands Who Does (Is) Whom What Where (How) He met his old there friend Jim Who Does (Is) Whom What Where (How) They were on the soccer team in high school. Who Does (Is) Whom What Where (How) They decided to go to Jim’s place, α Who Does (Is) Whom What Where (How) and talked 4. Resolution—Information about how the event ends α Who Does (Is) Whom What Where (How) After Hiroshi came home

When

by chance. How

When

When overnight. When

Does (Is)

Whom

What (How)

Where

He Who

noticed Does (Is)

Whom

What (How) anything

Where

When

Figure 16.4 Sentences in MAP Grammar

to study for a test. How

Who

hadn’t studied 5. Coda—A bridge between the story world and the present Who Does (Is) Whom What Where α (How) Hiroshi should’ve thought Before He took Action.

Why

When

next morning When

He

Why

Why for the test.

When Å

190

Hiroshi Nakagawa and Yosuke Ishii

Figure 16.5 Sample of a refined story

exploratory discussions add more details to the organized story (Figure 16.5). Group discussions of these added events enable students to make further connections and increase the generalization of different forms beyond the scope of the pictured events. In this way, the students are able to engage in discussions about what they have learned and how they have generalized this knowledge beyond the original pictures. Step 6: Tell the students that they are going to take a look at a new set of pictures similar to the ones they have just practiced with. Students are instructed to ask questions about the content of the second set of pictures and write their questions on a provided handout. Step 7: Introduce the second set of pictures. Step 8: Have the students form groups of about four people so they can ask and answer questions similar to those made up in step 5. Step 9: Have the students tell the story depicted in the second set of images based on the completed hand out. After practicing in groups, several students should share their stories with the entire class. Step 10: The teacher provides feedback, as well as his/her sample answers according to each component of the narrative text, such as the abstract, orientation, complication, resolution and coda.

Points for consideration This lesson is intended to maximize students’ L2 use without making any excessive demands on them to demonstrate their L2. The sentences presented on the board by the instructor and the ones that the students create to describe the second set of images need to be in English; however, the students’ use of

Communication and critical thinking

191

their native language as they work in groups to create sentences with MAP is not prohibited. Ensure that the organization of the first pictures parallels the second so that the students can make use of similar questions. In this description, a narrative text has been used as a model but other images, which depict other types of events can also be used as well. For example, showing examples of family members and having the students describe their family serves to help them organize their ideas in a parallel manner. For lower-level students, providing a list of difficult words or phrases or making vocabulary charts can reduce the L2 burden. The teacher must also make several questions regarding the images and the functions in MAP. After the students answer the questions, make a vocabulary list for each section and have the students use these words.

Outcomes The assessment of student performance in this task will be conducted informally. According to Goh and Burns (2012), a formative assessment should be integrated into classroom tasks throughout the course so that teachers can check on students’ progress and modify the content as necessary. Therefore, what students are expected to achieve is evaluated mainly during the question response phase of the activity in Step 3. In Step 6, on the basis of what the students have produced and finally, in Step 9, through their oral performance. To complete all the given tasks throughout the entire lesson encompasses students engaging in a wide range of skills. Naturally, the areas in which the instructor can provide support are diverse ranging over a wide area and may include for example learners’ pronunciation or the content of their oral delivery. However, for this example instructor support is related to the acquisition of sentence structure based on the adoption of MAP and CT skills.

Outcome criteria If the students are able to depict the events shown in the second set of images, then the lesson would be considered successful (Figure 16.6).

Abstract

This is a happy story about a girl named Gayla.

Orientation

One day, she looked at herself in the mirror.

Complication She noticed that she had gained some weight. She decided to jog around the park every day. Resolution

After losing weight, a lot of her friends told her she looked well.

Coda

She was happy, and jogging became her daily habit.

Figure 16.6 Sample outcome

192

Hiroshi Nakagawa and Yosuke Ishii

Modes of communication One aspect that the students are expected to learn is to be able to change the style or tone of their oral delivery according to the register and genre to which they are in. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (2014) defines the ability to communicate as to know how, when, and why to say what to whom. In this activity, the learners are exposed to the following two different modes of communication: short turns and long turns. In the former, interlocutors often cooperate with one another to deliver a message. A: Who is the main character of the story? B: Hiroshi. In the earlier interaction, B’s response to A’s question will complete one set of information. In one-way communication, such as one listed next, the speaker needs to complete a sentence in order to complete its meaning. Hiroshi is the main character of the story. Visualization by MAP helps the students understand the two different ways of communicating. How well students have learned this will be assessed when they are asked to form their questions in Step 7. The assessment also tells the instructor whether the students have comprehended the basic components of the narratives.

Verb tenses Another area that the instructor should pay attention to is how the students use verb tenses. In storytelling, the actions described by verbs belong to the past. Therefore, the students should be able to use the past tense. For actions that occurred before another action in the past, the past perfect form should be used. However, in the case of advanced students, encouraging them to use the ‘conversational historical present’, which frequently occurs in oral English, needs to be considered to make the scene sound as if it is happening right at the moment (Cowan, 2008). I found Eric – he’s my colleague – on the train. I haven’t told anyone this, but I really like him. I say hello to him, and he responds. Then, he immediately smiles. I think, ‘Wow, he likes me too’.

MAP Grammar and cohesive devices As shown earlier, coherent use of verb tense increases textual cohesion. In addition to coherence, students are expected to practice cohesion in their verbal delivery. Butt, Fahey, Feez and Spinks (2012) classify cohesive devices into two

Communication and critical thinking

Who

Does (Is)

Whom

Hiroshi

went

Who

Does (Is)

Whom

He

met

his old friend Jim

What (How)

Where

When

to the library What (How)

Where

193

Why to study for a test.

When

there

How by chance.

Figure 16.7 Reference by pronouns/determiners

α

Who

Does (Is)

Kevin and Darin

found

α

Who

Does (Is)

Then,

they

decided

Whom

What (How)

Where

When

the Turkish restaurant Whom

How closed.

What (How)

Where

to go to

another restaurant nearby.

When

How

Figure 16.8 Then

categories: ‘the lexical devices’ of repetition, semantic relations, equivalence and semblance and ‘the grammatical devices’ of reference, substitution and ellipsis; what students are particularly expected to learn in this activity is the roles that personal pronouns/ determiners and conjunctive adverbs play in the discourse. Regarding personal pronouns/determiners that refer backward, the instructor can urge the learners to pay extra attention to the Who Whom/What slots in MAP when these appear in the previous statement, as shown in Figure 16.7. Presenting how conjunctive adverbs play a role in cohesion using MAP will help students understand grammar beyond the sentence level. In MAP, cohesive adverbs are inserted in the ‘α slot’, as shown in Figure 16.8. Although what is inserted in α is not required to form a grammatically complete sentence, it plays a role in putting the clause in the appropriate context. This rule could apply to a sentence, such as the one in Figure 16.9. Grammatically, the following example is possible, but it does not convey the message shown earlier. We should keep in mind that some conjunctive adverbs are used in very formal contexts and are hardly ever used in spoken discourse. For example, markers

194 α

Hiroshi Nakagawa and Yosuke Ishii

Who

Does (Is)

Actually, I

didn’t know

α

Who

Does (Is)

I

didn’t know

Whom

What (How)

Where

When

How

Where

When

How

much about the event. Whom

What (How) much about the event

actually.

Figure 16.9 Actually

for addition ‘furthermore’ are rarely used in an informal setting. For this case, the instructor can provide students with alternatives, such as ‘plus’ and ‘on top of that’.

Conclusion Grammar instruction for high intermediate or lower advanced students tends to involve the presentation of difficult grammar. However, from the standpoint of oral production, what prevents these learners from becoming fluent speakers is insufficient internalization of relatively basic items. Presenting such items with the adaptation of MAP in a meaningful context helps learners go beyond their current level and enables them to use grammar as a tool for communication.

References American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. (2014). Global competence position statement. Retrieved May 19, 2017, from www.actfl.org/news/ position-statements/global-competence-position-statement Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., & Spinks, S.(2012). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553–573. doi:10.2307/3586613 Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English with answers: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2011). Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Oliveira, L. C., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Endley, M. J. (2010). Linguistic perspectives on English grammar: A guide for EFL teachers. IAP. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Goh, C. C., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Communication and critical thinking

195

Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Sydney: UNSW Press. Lakshmi, G. S. (2012). Techniques of teaching critical thinking. In Z. N. Patil (Ed.), Innovations in English language teaching: Voices from the Indian classroom (pp. 113–133). Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. Payne, T. E. (2010). Understanding English grammar: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Redmond, M. L. (2014). Reaching global competence. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 1–2. doi:10.1111/flan.12067 Tishman, S., & Palmer, P. (2006). Artful thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

17 MAP Grammar and recitation/ reproduction activities Kei Okuzumi

MAP Grammar as a method of instruction could be likened to an ‘Operating System (OS)’ for computers rather than a single ‘application’. Just as an OS does, it provides the user with a basic interface allowing them to navigate through different functions smoothly. Given the right applications, the experience is expected to be more convenient and satisfying. In this sense, while the MAP Grammar structure itself is not a form of activity, it can form the basis for a variety of activities that may provide learners with multiple opportunities to use English, in various situations. For EFL learners whose L1 may have a totally different structure from English, MAP Grammar can function to bridge the distance to their L1 and aid learners in understanding English more implicitly. As such, the author does not consider the practices introduced in this chapter as activities or as tasks. Learners are only required to recite the English phrases from their textbooks or copy them onto their worksheets. However, MAP Grammar functions to bridge the gap in their understanding and produce English sentences from inside the EFL learners’ heads (Figure 17.1).

Lesson objectives This practice is used to achieve the following objectives: 1. 2. 3.

To aid EFL learners in comprehending a target passage, To aid EFL learners in distinguishing and differentiating the structures of each sentence, and To assist EFL learners in becoming proficient users of English.

Age/grade

14 years old (2nd year junior high school)

Level

Lower intermediate (CEFR A2)

MAP task time

5 minutes, every lesson

Preparation time

5 minutes for Reading, 15 minutes Writing

Resources/materials

handouts (for Writing)

Figure 17.1 Learner information

MAP Grammar and recitation/reproduction activities

197

Theoretical background The students in this lesson are Japanese, and as such, their L1 has a very different structure from English, particularly due to the flexible word order of the Japanese language. As a consequence, novice Japanese EFL learners often require a much longer period to become accustomed to English grammar when compared with learners whose L1 has a similar language background to English. In spite of such an obstacle, Japanese EFL education often provides learners with the meanings of target sentences in the Japanese sentence order. Explanations of how the translations represent the English language structure often employ heavy use of metalanguage, which may be a burden on less proficient learners. Applying the MAP Grammar structure to L1 explanations, however, drives the learners to process the language linearly while understanding the word order somewhat more implicitly. The author has been utilizing MAP Grammar with his students for about two years. This chapter will introduce a commonly used activity, in which his students recite the wh-groups (i.e., who, what, where, when, etc.) in their L1. This activity is used regularly over a two-year period (of roughly 3.5 hours a week, typical of the Japanese junior high school context), by which point the students are able to fully internalize the word order of English.

Procedure This activity is typically conducted with passages of English from the class textbook. The activity consists of two parts: recitation and copying. The recitation is typically performed with teacher involvement in the classroom, while the students usually complete copying individually (at school or at home). Before undertaking recitation and copying, the learners should be provided with the target passage and fully understand its content. This may be facilitated by the teacher in the classroom, by providing model readings and follow-up questions, and may also incorporate choral reading, in which all students repeat the model reading after the teacher.

Recitation Recitation is conducted sentence-by-sentence for the length of a passage. A possible example of a target sentence might be as follows: My father taught me how to ride a bike in the park the other day. As the teacher reads wh-groups in the students’ L1 (Japanese, although this may also be conducted in English for classrooms with learners of different language backgrounds), the students respond accordingly with the correct English meaning from the target sentence (T = teacher, Ss = students). T: Ss:

Dare-ga? (Who?) My father

198 T: Ss: T: Ss: T: Ss: T: Ss: T: Ss:

Kei Okuzumi Suru-desu? (Does?) taught Dare? (Whom?) me Nani? (What?) how to ride a bike Doko? (Where?) in the park Itsu? (When?) the other day

Through this practice, all the students, including the non-proficient students, are expected to understand the structure of the target sentence since the teacher reads wh-groups in their L1. This is a simple teacher-lead recitation drill, although there are a number of other pair-work strategies that may be employed for this procedure, including: 1. 2. 3.

In pairs, one student delivers the wh-groups, while student responds accordingly with the correct English meaning In pairs, student A delivers the L1 phrases (in meaning-box chunks), then Student B responds accordingly with the correct English meaning, or In pairs, student A delivers the English phrases (in meaning-box chunks), then Student B responds accordingly with the correct Japanese (L1) meaning.

Copying For the copying practice, the students are provided a worksheet, which is designed based on the MAP Grammar structure. The Japanese meaning has been parsed into English order in meaning box chunks, see Figure 17.2.

Figure 17.2 Sample worksheet

MAP Grammar and recitation/reproduction activities

199

Figure 17.3 Completed copying practice worksheet

Students read the Japanese (L1) phrases part-by-part, then copy the correct English accordingly from the passage (usually taken from a textbook). A completed worksheet is shown in Figure 17.3. Proficient students can alternatively attempt this practice by reading the Japanese (L1) phrases then write the appropriate English meaning without looking at the passage.

Outcomes Both the recitation and copying practices have unique goals. Recitation is intended here to provide oral output, and it also allows the teacher opportunity to give feedback to their students for pronunciation and intonation. The copying practice gives students an opportunity to practice spelling and the structure of written English, and is typically corrected (sometimes by a peer, but usually with some degree of teacher involvement), perhaps providing an opportunity to students to notice their errors.

Expected outcomes for recitation Novice EFL learners often struggle when they encounter long clauses. In the recitation practice, students’ performance may vary when they are exposed to

200

Kei Okuzumi

longer clauses. If the teacher notices incorrect NPs being reproduced, the activity should be stopped briefly to draw attention to the structure of such clauses. In many cases, this may be achieved by applying the MAP Grammar structure to the content of a single meaning box, as the meaning boxes often follow the MAP Grammar structure internally as well: T: Ss: T: Ss:

Nani? (What?) how to ride Nani? Nani-ni Noruno? (What does he ride?) how to ride a bike

It is presumed that recognizing the noun clauses is one of the most essential skills when learners utilize MAP Grammar to understand or produce English sentences. This recitation practice is expected to develop their conscious understanding of the internal clause structure, as well as the structure of the English language at the sentence level.

Expected outcomes for copying After students complete the copying practice, they are expected to self-check their performances through comparison with the model passage (usually from a textbook). This process may help non-proficient learners particularly to become consciously aware of areas (or errors) on which they should concentrate. One of the most frequent errors seems to be the omission of articles (a, an, the) in the sentences. It might be difficult for non-proficient students to find those omissions in their worksheets by themselves, and the MAP Grammar structure itself does not address this type of minor error. It is the role of teachers to provide feedback on this type of error to their students.

Students’ voices Both the recitation and copying activities are incorporated regularly into classes, as they are considered to be of little burden to the students. Both activities may be completed relatively quickly and smoothly with passing attention being paid to MAP Grammar structure. For the copying practice in particular, the students were able to copy the sentences at their own pace, and the majority of students, even non-proficient learners, reported achieving a feeling of accomplishment. When the recitation practice is conducted in student pairs, several students were observed to have difficulty with the task. The practice requires one student in each pair to have sufficient understanding of the target passage’s content and its structure to achieve the best results. The teacher must be conscious of pairs that are not performing to standard, and provide assistance where possible. As for the copying practice, given its nature as an awareness-raising task, and that the students are able to self-check with reference to the original passage, no students encounter difficulty with the task, including non-proficient learners.

MAP Grammar and recitation/reproduction activities

201

Figure 17.4 Students in the classroom

One of the students commented, “Though it was a little difficult to decide where to clip (parse), I managed it”. Even for the students who struggle with the traditional metalanguage workbooks, it seemed to work as a learning material (Figure 17.4).

Final thoughts By adopting a MAP Grammar perspective both teachers and students become more aware of English language practices related to sentence structures, and, consequently, they commit fewer global errors. The activity introduced here is one that requires little preparation time or materials and thus may easily be incorporated into the larger curriculum of any EFL or with some adaptation into an ESL class. Another benefit of these MAP Grammar tasks is that they provide opportunities for all students, including non-proficient learners, to gain practical experience of using English. Although students’ textbooks tend to gradually introduce English sentences, which have more complicated structures or longer noun clauses, MAP Grammar keeps the learners motivated to both comprehend and produce English.

18 A stepwise application of MAP Grammar for speaking Taiki Yamaoka

This chapter reviews a classroom activity that was designed to develop the speaking skills of second-year junior high school EFL students (aged 13–14). MAP Grammar was introduced in a stepwise manner, rather than being presented as a whole, so that the students could learn how to add more information to the short, simple sentences that they were already able to build. The activity was a kind of picture description, in which the students described a picture or created a story based on the picture. The result was generally positive: the students became more conscious of sentence-building strategy, and thus learned to build longer sentences with more meaningful units. Some background information about the class in discussion is shown in Figure 18.1. Age/grade

14–15 years old (2nd year junior high school)

Level

Lower intermediate (CEFR A2)

MAP task time

10–15 minutes, every lesson

Preparation time

0–2 minutes

Resources/materials

Adequate classroom space, blackboard, “IMIJUN” magnets, worksheet for picture description

Figure 18.1 Learner information

Lesson objectives This activity aimed to develop the students’ speaking skills, especially the skill of building sentences that have a reasonable amount of information. Although Japanese students are generally slow to learn the productive skills of English, they are typically at least able to build sentences with the simplest structures such as I like baseball, I am 14 years old, or I am (a) junior high school student (articles are a major challenge for native Japanese speakers). Despite the remarkable difference in the word orders between the two languages (English being an SVO language and Japanese an SOV language) many Japanese students are quick in learning to build these sentences with minimum meaningful units.

A stepwise application of MAP Grammar

203

However, once they try to go beyond these simple structures, they often hit a wall; they have difficulty creating more information-rich sentences. This difficulty is twofold. On the one hand, they have difficulty modifying individual units within the MAP Grammar structure and thereby increase the amount of information within them. On the other, they struggle to increase the number of units in a single sentence. In order to overcome the first difficulty, they need to learn grammar, and, in particular, they have to learn the different ways of modifying a noun. This naturally requires a fair amount of time because English and Japanese modify nouns in different ways. The second difficulty, however, can be addressed more easily. The students only have to add more units to their simple sentences, and most of those additional units can be PPs, which are grammatically simple enough for the students to handle. MAP Grammar instruction can contribute toward overcoming this second difficulty by functioning as a heuristic for the students to use to increase the informational content of their sentences.

Theoretical background The simple principle that underlies this activity is that there is a limit to a person’s working memory; that is, students cannot focus their attention on everything involved in producing English sentences simultaneously. Language students, particularly at the beginning levels are much more likely to be affected by this limitation since they have to recall appropriate vocabulary items, put them in an appropriate order, and articulate them with an appropriate pronunciation and volume. Their cognitive resources are spread thin over these demands, often causing them to make inappropriate utterances. This holds true even when we consider the ordering of vocabulary items only, in which case the students are often unable to think of all the parts of a sentence at the same time. It is better, therefore, to focus their attention on as few things as possible until they can process multiple parts more easily. MAP Grammar is, therefore, an appropriate model for such students in that it consists of different units that can be separated. By allowing the students to apply those units in a one-by-one manner, they can learn to build an English sentence more easily.

Procedure The students engaged in the picture description task in every class, which was an activity independent of the required textbook (classes in Japan are typically conducted with Ministry of Education approved textbooks). I prepared special worksheets for this activity, which included a picture from past interview questions in a nationwide English proficiency test called the STEP (Society for Testing English Proficiency) test. An example of the worksheets is shown in Figure 18.2. Students would look at the table on the left side of the worksheet during the activity, and try to find something to say about the picture. The back of the worksheet was ruled for the students to write down their oral descriptions after the class work.

204

Taiki Yamaoka

Figure 18.2 Worksheet for the picture description

This activity was carried out in two different ways in the first and second school term. In the first term, the students described the picture. They made pairs and explained to their partners what they saw on the picture such as “A boy is eating a hamburger by the window”. Each piece of the description did not have to be related to any each other. They received the handout only at the beginning of the activity and they did not have time for preparation, and so they had to improvise their descriptions. The procedures for this activity were as follows. Step 1: The teacher hands out the worksheet. Here, the students see the picture for the first time. Step 2: The students prepare their description in one minute. They are allowed to use their dictionaries, but they cannot write down what they are going to say. Step 3: The students make pairs. Each pair decides which student will do the description first. Step 4: While the teacher keeps time for one minute, the first students describe the picture to their partners, who listen to the description and memorize what information is included. On several occasions, the partners count how many words the speaker utter in the given one minute with a tool called the ‘Word Counter’ shown in Figure 18.3. Step 5: After the one minute, the students switch roles and the second students do their description. This time, however, the speakers should try to

60

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

99 102 139 142 179 182 219 222

98 103 138 143 178 183 218 223

97 104 137 144 177 184 217 224

96 105 136 145 176 185 216 225

95 106 135 146 175 186 215 226

94 107 134 147 174 187 214 227

93 108 133 148 173 188 213 228

92 109 132 149 172 189 212 229

91 110 131 150 171 190 211 230

90 111 130 151 170 191 210 231

89 112 129 152 169 192 209 232

88 113 128 153 168 193 208 233

87 114 127 154 167 194 207 234

86 115 126 155 166 195 206 235

85 116 125 156 165 196 205 236

84 117 124 157 164 197 204 237

83 118 123 158 163 198 203 238

82 119 122 159 162 199 202 239

81 120 121 160 161 200 201 240

Class

Number

Name

61 100 101 140 141 180 181 220 221

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

WPM

Topics

Figure 18.3 Word counter (the listener counts the number of utterance by the speaker by sliding their finger or pen over the numbers as they listen). The author modified the original version invented by Nishi (2010)

Year

20

59

38

3

42

39

2

41

40

1

Word Counter

206

Taiki Yamaoka give new pieces of information different from that of the first students. Only when then cannot find anything new to add, can they say the same things as the first students. Step 6: The teacher asks the students how they have described the picture. He names one or two students or pairs to demonstrate what they did in Steps 4 and 5. Step 7: The teacher makes comments on the students’ descriptions. He points out from what part of their descriptions the others can learn, what part needs improving, or he teaches expressions that are worth learning. He lets the students read those expressions aloud, gives additional examples, and encourages the students to make sentences with the expressions. Step 8: If time allows, the students make new pairs and practice more. They can try using the new expressions and make their descriptions richer. Step 9: The students write down their description on the back of the worksheet as homework, and submit it in the next class.

In the second term, instead of describing the picture objectively, they created a story based on the picture. They had to imagine the background of the scene and give adequate information that made their description consistent as a story. This change was made because the students grew accustom to the first activity and were losing motivation leading to fewer prospects for improvement. However, since it seemed too difficult for them to improvise a story, I gave them the handouts from the previous class and required them to prepare their story. The students did the activity in a group of four, each taking turns in specific roles as a Speaker, a Recorder or one of two Reporters. The Speaker prepared the story, the Recorder recorded the Speaker’s words with a voice recorder; the two Reporters took notes of the Speaker’s story and later reported it to another group. As these roles rotated within the group, the students told their own story only once in four classes (that was practically once a week), but still they had almost the same amount of practice because they had to report another student’s story. The procedures for this activity were as follows. Step 1: The students form groups of four, putting their desks together to make ‘islands’. The members already know what role they take for that day. Step 2: While the teacher times 90 seconds, the Speakers tell their stories in each ‘island’. They have prepared their stories before the class, but they cannot read aloud their notes. In most cases, the students cannot prepare stories that fill up the provided time; the rest of the time the students have to fill by improvising other parts of the stories. This makes a crucial point in this activity, which will be discussed later. Step 3: After the 90 seconds, the Reporters ask the Speaker questions in Japanese to make clear what the Speaker had tried to say. They take notes on the answers.

A stepwise application of MAP Grammar

207

Step 4: The Reporters move to another ‘island’, where they report the story they have heard in their own ‘islands’. Step 5: At the end of the activity, the teacher names one or two Speakers to tell their stories to the whole class. The teacher gives comments just as in Step 7.

Points for consideration The activity itself is of an ordinary kind that uses a visual aid as a catalyst to elicit students’ utterances. Without the teacher’s intervention, students would keep producing sentences of a similar complexity and a similar amount of information no matter how many times they practiced. They must be given appropriate feedback about what could be added so that they can make their description or story richer, and this is where MAP Grammar can be applied the most effectively. For instance, when the activity is introduced, students are likely to make sentences (about the picture shown in Figure 18.1) such as “A woman is walking” or “A boy is ordering a hamburger and some drink”. These may not be bad, but there is a lot of room for improvement. With the MAP Grammar framework, these sentences can be analyzed as displayed on Figure 18.4. As this clearly shows, these sentences contain only the first three meaningful units. This is exactly what many Japanese students are likely to do when they speak English; that is, they say only the vital elements that make up a sentence (subject, verb, and object or complement) and do not include adverbials that would make their messages clearer and more vivid. By showing the students this analysis, the teacher can make them realize what improvements they should make in their speaking. In the case earlier, the teacher can point to the blank units of WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY, and advise the students to fill them with whatever they can say. As is easily expected, however, the students cannot learn to produce these additional elements immediately. Therefore, the teacher should focus on one or two units at a time and help the students practice using them. Examples of improvements students made will be shown in the next section.

DOES WHO

WHOM

WHAT

IS

WHAT BECOMES A woman

is walking

A boy

is ordering

WHERE HOW LIKE WHAT

a hamburger and some drink

Figure 18.4 Sentences analyzed with MAP Grammar

WHEN

HOW

WHY

208

Taiki Yamaoka

Expected outcomes At around the time the picture description was introduced, almost all of the students’ utterances were similar to the following: A boy is eating a hamburger. There are two tables. A woman is walking. Their sentences had only the WHO, DOES(IS) and WHOM (WHAT, HOW, LIKE WHAT) units. Additionally, there was no flow of discourse as each sentence was independent, saying something that did not relate to other sentences. This was not surprising considering the students had studied English for only one or two years and that describing discrete pieces of information was exactly what the STEP test required of junior high school students. However, this does not mean that sentences similar to those presented earlier could function well enough to communicate in English. Next, I analyzed the students’ utterances with MAP Grammar and showed how they lack information and how this lack made their description dull and monotonous. I advised them to make use of more units to load more information onto their sentences. I gave several examples such as the following: A woman is walking outside now with a smile to get to the restaurant. WHERE WHEN HOW WHY A girl is reading a book happily with her mother at a table at lunchtime. HOW HOW WHERE WHEN Since most of the students did not know different ways of modifying nouns and verbs such as relative pronouns and non-finite participle clauses, there were not many options they could choose from, but still, they had some stock of adverbs and PPs available. Some of the improvements they made are shown next (describing different pictures, grammatical mistakes are all original): A woman is drinking juice under the parasol in the afternoon. WHERE WHEN They are standing reading the magazines in the convenience store now. WHERE WHEN Some began to try to make their sentences longer by using coordinate conjunctions: It’s sunny today, so many people come to the beach. Two monkeys are playing on the ground and other monkeys are looking them playing.

A stepwise application of MAP Grammar

209

These examples show that the students found it relatively easy to apply the WHERE and WHEN units to their sentences, but not the HOW and WHY units. The reason for this was simply that they did not know many words that could be applied to the latter two units. More precisely, they knew very few adverbs to describe HOW; almost all they could say was happily and hard. The required textbooks do not include a lot of other adverbs, so they had to learn more to make better use of the HOW unit. Moreover, they could use only a few expressions with the WHY unit. They already knew because and to-infinitives, but they had not learned them well enough. Next, the syllabus proceeded to focus the students’ attention to the WHERE and WHEN units. This did not seem to be so difficult for them. They began to add PPs such as in the store, at the zoo, in front of the cage, or in summer vacation, on the weekend, and on his birthday, though WHERE seemed to be easier than WHEN for them to produce (the detailed results are shown in Table 18.2). At the same time, I encouraged them to try to use the HOW and WHY units; but this seemed to be more difficult for them. They produced only a few phrases within these two units. The only exception was a subordinate clause headed by because. When I advised them to use because to add more information, they learned to do so almost at once. Examples of their utterances are as follows: A man is taking a picture for his family in the zoo in summer vacation in July because he wants to have a good memory with his family. A tiger is looking at a man from the cage before lunch because the tiger wants to eat him. The reason for this easiness of using because was probably that the word was already familiar enough for them to use in their own utterances, and it was simple enough to add one more sentence (clause) after the word. This is remarkable, however, when we consider the low frequency of other simple conjunctions such as when, before, after or if in their utterances. Since the students generally found more difficulty in producing subordinate clauses than PPs, this high frequency of because is exceptional. Through this process, the students eventually learned to produce longer sentences with more information expressed within more units. Table 18.1 shows which units in the MAP Grammar structure the students used in their utterances at three different points of this teaching practice. ‘Frequency’ indicates how many of each unit they used, and ‘Percentage’ indicates the ratio of the number of units to the number of sentences they uttered. Some units show over 100% of use because the students used more than one of those units in one sentence. The n indicates the number of students whose utterances were analyzed. As the values show, data was collected, purely for a practical reason, from only about half of the class at the MID- and POST- stages. At the beginning, the PRE- stage, the students almost always only used three units WHO, DOES(IS) and WHOM/WHAT. At the MID-stage, as a result of encouragement students made more use of WHEN and especially WHERE.

210

Taiki Yamaoka

Table 18.1 Number of meaningful units used at three different points of time Magic WHO DOES WHAT WHERE WHEN HOW WHY Box PRE (n = 43) MID (n = 23) POST (n = 23)

Frequency 0 Percentage 0 Frequency 117 Percentage 40.8 Frequency 163 Percentage 59.1

334 100 359 125.1 363 131.5

334 100 369 128.6 386 139.9

262 78.4 281 97.9 319 115.6

22 6.6 47 16.4 48 17.4

1 0.3 25 8.7 62 22.5

2 0.6 29 10.1 48 17.4

0 0 18 6.3 32 11.6

Table 18.2 Average number of units in one sentence PRE (n = 43) MID (n = 23) POST (n = 23)

2.9 3.3 3.7

What is interesting is that though I did not say anything about the ALPHA, some students began to try it with adverbs such as Suddenly or Actually, with conjunctions such as And, But, So or with time expressions such as Now, One day and After the lunch. This tendency was strengthened when they were required to create stories. Finally in the POST-stage, after the students learned to use because, they loaded even more information into each sentence by using more WHY units. At the same time, they produced more of the WHERE units than they did at the MID- stage, probably because they were becoming more used to them. As a result, the average number of units that were included in one sentence kept increasing through the whole period, as shown in Table 18.2. This indicates the students’ sentences became richer in information and, in a sense, more complex and mature.

Students’ voices The students showed their uneasiness to use the MAP Grammar structure, especially when they were required to increase the amount of information with WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY. They actually pouted and grumbled because they thought it was too difficult for them. By guiding them to use the model in a step-by-step manner, however, they seemed to find it much easier to apply. In writing tasks in the term exams, which were independent from the picture description activity, they wrote longer sentences than they did before. The heuristic nature of the model probably gave the students a clue as to “Where to begin”.

A stepwise application of MAP Grammar

211

Final thoughts The order of the four meaningful units in the latter half, WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY, is often flexible, as in The man looked through the pages hurriedly on the spot. HOW WHERE/WHEN It is not wise, therefore, to rigidly stick to the order given in the model; but rather, to separate each unit and let the learners apply each individually. For this purpose, I sometimes presented MAP Grammar on the blackboard as in Figure 18.5. Here, the four units are presented as a cluster, so that the students can choose whatever units they want to use regardless of their order. What I have described in this chapter is that, despite its advantage of showing a typical order of meaningful units, MAP Grammar can be utilized by being divided into different meaningful units because it enables learners to learn to build a longer sentence in a step-bystep manner. Indeed, a linear model does not mean it has to be applied linearly.

Figure 18.5 Cards showing the order of meanings on the blackboard

Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to the Eiken Foundation of Japan for allowing a reproduction of their materials from the STEP Eiken, also known as the Eiken Test in Practical English Proficiency (see the image in the picture description worksheet, Figure 18.2) to be used in this chapter.

Reference Nishi, I. (2010). Word Counter wo Katsuyo Shita Kyoui no Speaking Katsudo 22 [22 amazing speaking activities that utilize the word counter]. Tokyo: Meiji Tosho Publishing.

19 Role-play interviews with MAP Grammar Ryan W. Smithers

Using role-play in the classroom is an effective way to create a positive learning atmosphere that provides ample opportunities for meaning-focused input and output, language-focused learning and fluency development. In this chapter, teachers will learn how MAP Grammar can be integrated into role-play interviews. More specifically, the author explains how adult EFL learners role-played celebrity interviews to improve their mastery of the present perfect tense with MAP Grammar. Information about the learners is provided in Figure 19.1, below. Age/grade

over 55 years old (Adult learners)

Level

false beginner to low intermediate (CEFR A1–A2)

MAP task time

60–90 minutes

Preparation time

10 minutes

Resources/materials

MAP handout for all students (Appendix 1), two copies of sample interview transcript for two people to model (Appendix 2), blackboard/whiteboard and writing utenciles, and a timer

Figure 19.1 Learner information

Lesson objectives The main purpose of this lesson plan is to help EFL or ESL students develop communicative ability by providing them with an opportunity for ‘cooperative learning’ (i.e., Sharan, 2010). Furthermore, this lesson plan aims to facilitate conversational confidence and competence by introducing students to skills and strategies they can use in negotiating all aspects of English communication in addition to role-play interviews. Toward this end, by giving students the chance to assume the ‘role’ of a celebrity or interviewer and ‘play’ these respective roles in a safe, non-judgmental classroom environment, it is hoped that by the end of the lesson students should be able to complete the following: 1.

Participate in the classroom in a way that improves interaction, communication and a sense of community with classmates.

Role-play interviews with MAP Grammar 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

213

Work in pairs to gain a greater understanding of the informational organization that is found in interviews. Improve CT skills by considering a wide variety of social interest topics that would be motivating to classmates. Use MAP Grammar to develop interview questions and answers. Respond fluently to questions on familiar topics. Improve oral expressions related to the present perfect tense. Have fun ‘playing’ in English.

Information related to the group that this lesson plan was modeled on can be found in Table 1. Of note, this class is a rather unique group of learners in that they are lifelong learners who are all over the age of 55 and are learning eikaiwa (English conversation) in a non-formal setting, a community center. In addition, these learners could be classified as learners who enjoy learning EFL as a hobby or ‘leisure activity’ (see Kubota, 2011).

Theoretical background In the literature, role-play is defined as the act of having students assume a ‘role’ and ‘play’ the part that is associated with a given role, similar to ‘playing house’ by young children. In doing this, language teachers give their students opportunities to actually ‘be’ the kinds of characters that they wish to imitate while at the same time “unselfconsciously creating their own reality” through which they get to experiment with language and interact with peers as a kind of “dress rehearsal for real life” (Ladousse, 1987, pp. 5–6). As a language teaching technique, role-play has been touted as an excellent way to have students communicate meaning appropriately. As early as 1976, Wilkins saw role-play as the best option for adding a semantic dimension to teaching because of the fact that the language encountered through role-play prioritized linguistic context over sentence-level learning, which is important when trying to develop fluency. Richards (1985) echoed these sentiments about the benefits of role-play to develop fluency and added that it may be the best vehicle for teachers to use to reinforce what has been taught through practice and repetition. Furthermore, empirical research on the effectiveness of role-play reveals that it is beneficial for developing pragmatic competence in learners (Fraser, Rintell, & Walters, 1980).

Procedure To get the most out of this activity, nothing substitutes good planning and organization; for both the teacher and students. For teachers, fortunately, it will not require a lot of preparation time, but it does entail making sure that students understand what is expected of them every step of the way, and what kind of help they can expect to receive from the teacher. In addition, it is good practice to set time limits for each part of this activity, which will be explained in detail next.

214

Ryan W. Smithers

For students, once they have seen the activity demonstrated and have had the parameters clearly defined, they should be able to demonstrate the lesson plan’s aims listed earlier at the conclusion of the activity.

Steps What follows are guidelines that will provide a framework for how to combine MAP Grammar with a fluency-building activity like role-play to reinforce how to use the present perfect tense to ask and respond to questions. Please note that the activity can be easily modified to target whatever structure or content needs to be reinforced or to simply let students be free to experiment with the English language. Step 1: Make sure that the MAP framework is written on the whiteboard/ blackboard and then begin the class by having students form pairs. Explain to them that they are about to see two people (two students, two teachers or a student and a teacher) conduct an interview. Tell them that one person is an interviewer while the other person is a celebrity. When using two students for this activity, it would be best to single two out at the beginning of class and provide them with a sample transcript of interview questions and answers. The transcript in Appendix 2 was created by two upper intermediate (CEFR B2) learners and could be used for modeling. Be sure to give this to students as soon as possible so that they can quickly and quietly read it over before beginning. Step 2: After the model interview has concluded, ask students to guess who the celebrity is (The sample in Appendix 2 is for Lady Gaga.). If they are unsure, allow each pair to ask their own questions in turns until the correct answer comes up. When dealing with shy students, the teacher might offer some hints to keep things moving along. Alternatively, the guessing part of the activity could be conducted as a competition among pairs to see who correctly guesses the name of the celebrity. Step 3: At this point, hand out a MAP Grammar worksheet (Appendix 1) to each student and have them in pairs, first, decide on a celebrity for their interview, and then decide who will be the interviewer and who the famous person. To prevent students from possibly choosing the same celebrity, teachers could decide on which celebrities to use for the roleplay by handing out the name of one famous person per group. Likewise, teachers could provide a ‘Celebrity Fact Sheet’ (see Appendix 3) for students to work from or a print out of biographical data, from, for example, a website like Wikipedia. Step 4: Now is the time to instruct students on how to construct present perfect tense questions and answers with MAP. If students are unfamiliar with MAP, it might be a good idea to introduce students to MAP (see Chapter 1, this volume) How much time is spent reviewing the present

Role-play interviews with MAP Grammar

215

perfect tense will depend on the needs of the students, but the content of Figures 19.2 through 19.6 will need to either be handed out for reference or written on the blackboard/whiteboard so that teachers can possibly solicit students to make their own sample sentence for each of the five patterns. As for the construction of question sentences with interrogatives, a brief overview of Figure 19.7 will be needed. Generally speaking, the review will take between five and ten minutes.

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHOM/WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

I

have known

you

since 2004.

He

has taught

English

for five years.

Figure 19.2 Using MAP Grammar to explain about ‘how long’

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHOM/WHAT(HOW)

I

have never tried

sushi

She

has visited

WHERE

WHEN before.

Hawaii

three times.

Figure 19.3 Using MAP Grammar to explain about ‘life experiences’

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHOM/WHAT(HOW)

My wife

has just gone

The President has announced

WHERE

WHEN

to the hospital. a big change in policy.

Figure 19.4 Using MAP Grammar to explain about ‘recent events’

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHOM/WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

WHEN

I

have seen

our teacher

today.

He

has been

absent

three times this month.

Figure 19.5 Using MAP Grammar to explain about ‘unfinished time periods’

216

Ryan W. Smithers

so

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHOM/WHAT(HOW)

I

have missed

my bus

I

will be

late.

WHERE

WHEN

Figure 19.6 Using MAP Grammar to explain about the ‘results of a past action’

WHO

DOES (IS)

WHOM/WHAT(HOW)

Have

you

seen

our teacher?

Has

your son

ever eaten

sushi

WHERE

WHEN

before?

Figure 19.7 Using MAP Grammar for ‘question sentences with interrogatives’

Step 5: After reviewing how to use MAP Grammar for the present perfect tense, have students work in pairs for five to ten minutes so that they can formulate their questions and answers. Make it a requirement that students include at least two present perfect tense questions in the interview. If policy permits, teachers could allow students to use their smartphones to research about their celebrity. Step 6: Begin the role-play interviews. Use numbered cards to assign the order of the interviews or choose the order at the teacher’s discretion. How long it takes to complete this step will depend on class sizes and time constraints, but by giving each student pair three minutes for their interview role-play and one to two minutes for a competition among observing pairs to see who can correctly guess the name of the presenting pair’s celebrity will allow between 12 and 15 pairs (24 to 30 students) to role-play in front of the class in 60 minutes. For large classes, it is advisable to divide the class in half and have two groups doing the role-play interviews at the same time. Step 7: At the conclusion of the role plays, congratulate students on a great job. If time permits, teachers can highlight a few mistakes that were made during the interviews or make a mental note of students’ weaknesses for a follow-up class. If time permits, it is also a good practice to conduct a ‘debriefing session’, a time of self-reflection. Teachers could ask some of the following questions, in writing or orally, to get students to reflect on what was learnt, how they benefited from the activity and what they think they need to improve on: • What did you like best about this activity? • What was the most difficult part of this task?

Role-play interviews with MAP Grammar • • • • •

217

What did you learn from your interviews? Are role plays a good way to learn English? What would you like to do differently for next time? What did you notice was your weak point? What were yours and your partner’s strong points?

Points for consideration During this activity, there are a couple of points that bear mentioning. Firstly, remember not to use metalinguistic terms (e.g., irregular verb, infinitive, preposition) when working with MAP. This will only weaken one of the strengths of MAP Grammar. Also, when teaching the present perfect tense with MAP, it might be helpful to draw students’ attention to the kinds of vocabulary that are typically associated with this tense, such as ‘since’, ‘for’, ‘ever’, ‘never’ ‘this week/month/ year’, ‘twice/three times’, ‘just’, ‘yet’, ‘already’ and ‘recently’. Lastly, error correction, between and after all of the role-playing should be done judiciously. That is, focus on global errors unless students are making the same kinds of local errors.

Students’ voices and reaction At the end of this lesson, students were entreated to partake in a self-reflection exercise. Specifically, students’ anonymous comments were solicited in writing in response to the following three questions: • • •

What did you learn from your lesson today? How do you feel about what you learned today? What do you think you need to do to improve more?

In response to the first question, all of the students responded similarly: “I learned how to talk about experiences” or “I got a better understanding of the present perfect tense”. As for the affective question about the learning experience, the responses were much more diverse, with all comments extolling the benefit of the MAP framework: “This was useful for my brain to arrange my English learning”, “Because of Imijun1 I can understand present perfect tense easily”, and “I thought even a complicated sentence was applied [applicable] to Imijun”. Finally, the answers to the last question ranged from a general desire to “hear and speak in English easily” or “practice” to a consensus among many that MAP was important to their future improvement. “From now on, I depend on Imijun and study it repeatedly. It is best study method, I think”.

Final thoughts Pedagogy is often replete with many components that consist of conversational language, such as vocabulary, grammar, idiomatic expressions and pat phrases, as well as collaborative activities that have a ‘conversational feel’, but, unfortunately,

218

Ryan W. Smithers

lack authenticity, spontaneity, and other characteristics of natural conversational discourse. However, MAP Grammar, with its focus on semantic roles, is well matched to a fluency-building activity like role-play that allows teachers to ‘semanticize’ language-focused learning, such as was done with the present perfect tense. In addition, this pairing allows the pedagogy to focus more on comprehensible and meaningful input and output while at the same time providing impetus for greater gains in grammatical competence and by engaging learners in authentic conversational interaction that is motivating and fun.

Note 1 The Japanese name for MAP Grammar is Imijun, and students refer to it as such in their comments.

References Fraser, B., Rintell, E., & Walters, J. (1980). An approach to conducting research on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. In D. LarsenFreeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 75–91). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kubota, R. (2011). Learning a foreign language as leisure and consumption: Enjoyment, desire, and the business of eikaiwa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4), 473–488. doi:10.1080/13670050.2011.573069 Ladousse, G. P. (1987). Role play. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J. C. (1985). Conversational competence through role play activities. RELC Journal, 16(1), 82–91. doi:10.1177/003368828501600107 Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 300–313. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01430.x

Appendix 1 Map grammar worksheet

Figure 19.8 MAP Grammar worksheet

Appendix 2 Abridged role-play transcript created by CEFR B2 learners based on Lady Gaga

Interviewer: Celebrity: Interviewer: Celebrity: Interviewer: Celebrity: Interviewer:

Celebrity: Interviewer: Celebrity: Interviewer: Celebrity: Interviewer: Celebrity: Interviewer: Celebrity:

[Greet partner, introduce yourself, complement your partner, and thank him/her for coming to your interview] [Respond appropriately] OK, let’s get started. I heard you are from New York, right? Yes, right. It must be a very good place to live. So, how long have you been a singer? Oh, since 2005 . . . maybe for 11 years. Such a long time. I love your songs, and I think your passion and performances are very unique. How many times have you been to Japan? Oh, maybe about six times. I love Japan very much, and I want to live in Japan. I love Hello Kitty. Wow! I saw you were in a Hello Kitty dress on TV. I love your unique fashion. Why are you so unique? Oh! You think my fashion is so unique? Yes! Oh, thank you! My motto is ‘life is performance’, so I express my life by my my passion and performance. Hmm, great! Also, I’m interested in your charity. Why do you work for others? Oh, it’s such a long story. When I was young, I was green, and I had a hard time, so I want to help people in trouble. That’s nice. Now it’s time to finish, today. Thank you for coming. Thank you.

Appendix 3 Celebrity fact sheet

Name: Lady Gaga Profession: Singer-songwriter Born: March 28, 1986 (age 30) Residence: Lives in Mahattan, New York, USA Facts about Lady Gaga: •

She has one younger sister

•

She learned to play the piano at four years old.

•

She wrote her first song at age 13.

•

She started performing live at age 14.

•

She formed her first band in 2005—the Stefani Germanotta Band.

•

Her first album, The Fame was released in 2008.

•

She has a very unique fashion sense.

•

She has raised lots of money for charities.

Figure 19.9 Celebrity fact sheet

20 Presentation projects with MAP Grammar Hiroshi Yamada

This chapter will introduce a MAP Grammar lesson for presentations. The target students’ English proficiency level is around B1 on the CEFR framework (intermediate). Tasks in this chapter will center around the use of explicit MAP Grammar instruction, with a particular focus on modes of speaking for presentations. The MAP Grammar task is employed from the preparation stage, allowing students to better understand the English content, as well as providing them with a framework for presenting researched information to an audience. The tasks within this lesson are expected to improve students’ presentation skills by providing students with the means to better draft speeches to more accurately and precisely capture the meaning of related information sources. The background information about the students, lesson time and resources are as follows (Figure 20.1):

Age/grade

15 years old (1st year high school)

Level

Intermediate (CEFR B1)

MAP task time

50 minutes once a week

Preparation time

1 week (Homework)

Resources/materials

Adequate classroom space, Worksheet, A book of students’ choice

Figure 20.1 Learner information

Lesson objectives The lesson aims to improve students’ speaking skills for presentations. The ability to deliver a presentation in English is one of the most important skills in both academia and professional circles, and students at every grade level should be taught how to do so effectively. The training for giving presentations in English, however, has not yet become a common practice. Consequently, non-nativeEnglish speakers are unaware of the integral difference between the use of spoken English in presentations and written English, such as that in scholarly articles. Non-native speakers of English tend to overuse the English language structures

Presentation projects with MAP Grammar 223 suitable for research articles when giving presentations. It is thus inevitable that their presentations become difficult for the audience to follow, which leads to a gap in understanding between the speaker and audience (Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005). The tasks involved in a presentation range from performing research beforehand to speaking clearly while reporting the findings.

Theoretical background One of the essential aspects of a successful presentation is intelligibility, which can be defined as the extent to which a listener can easily understand the material communicated. According to Shimamura and Takeuchi (2011), speaking in ‘open-style’ contributes to making a presentation more intelligible. Open-style speaking in presentations is casual in its structures, involving hedging, modalization and discourse markers and features the use of personal pronouns as subjects as well as a prominent use of the active voice (Shimamura & Takeuchi, 2011). These coincide with MAP Grammar, which emphasizes that in daily conversation animate subjects are used more often than inanimate ones and the active voice is more fundamental than the passive (Tajino, 2011). Therefore, introducing a MAP Grammar–based task when preparing for presentations may help students improve their intelligibility. This chapter introduces a task, which integrates MAP Grammar into ‘book talk’. This practice is often used for research preparation in order to encourage students, particularly high school students who are at the intermediate level, to speak more freely. ‘Book talk’ provides students with ample opportunities to make a presentation in open-style. In this task, students develop their comprehension of what they have read, deliver a summary to the audience, and offer their opinions on it. Following MAP Grammar, the students not only improve their abilities to review the literature necessary for their research but also express their opinions in open-style. By completing a number of the lesson’s tasks, students are expected to gradually develop the ability to deliver a clearer and more natural presentation in English.

Procedure Here is a brief and basic introduction of the lesson’s procedure. There are a number of teaching methods for book talk; however, in this chapter, I refer to a specific book talk instruction by Suzuki (2012), which aims to improve students’ understanding of information sources and expressing their ideas before they start their research. Step 1: The students choose a book, read it, and fill in the Book Talk Worksheet (see Figures 20.2 and 20.3) as homework. Step 2: Each student gives a presentation (i.e., book talk) in a group of four or five students. After all the students have given a presentation, they collectively choose the best presenter in each group. Step 3: The best presenters then give a presentation in front of all students.

Figure 20.2 MAP Grammar worksheet (side 1)

Figure 20.3 MAP Grammar worksheet (side 2)

226

Hiroshi Yamada

Points for consideration i.

The reading material for the students should correspond to their interests and be appropriate to their individual English language skill levels. For example, they can freely choose to read newspaper articles or academic articles instead of a book. ii. The time allotted for each presentation should be flexible and correspond to the reading material; when the students read newspaper articles, they need only 1 or 2 minutes for their presentation, but may need more time when they read longer information sources. (Additionally, in utilizing the Book Talk Worksheet, they will have acquired additional knowledge on the topic, and may need more time for expressing their opinions.) iii. An opportunity should be allowed for students to give constructive feedback to each other’s speech script before they present their speeches in a group. A number of studies have shown that the use of peer feedback helps writers, speech script writers in this particular study, to understanding how their work will be interpreted by others (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Modification through interaction makes input available and comprehensible, while enhancing one’s sense of the audience’s perception. If the peer-feedback group consists of students with different interests (and academic abilities), a lack of shared knowledge could help the presenting students adjust the script towards the real audience who may not have enough background knowledge on the topic presented. On the other hand, the peers with similar study interests could offer alternative perspectives to each other and it would contribute to making more insightful, specialized scripts.

Outcomes Here is an example of the worksheet that one Japanese student filled in after reading an academic article. An example of students’ work (1) Urabe, M. (2006) “Cultural barriers in educational evaluation: A comparative study on school report cards in Japan and Germany” International Education Journal, 7(3), 273–283. (2) A: (Japanese) avoid conflict or disagreement with each other. B: (Germans) feel that honesty is more important than discomfort. C: It is difficult for German people to compliment others with empty words. (3) Germans tend to express their own opinions directly. They think it is more polite to speak honestly than to flatter. To compliment others with empty words is difficult for them. (4) Germans did not compliment a girl in the experiment. And they told their true feelings to her.

Presentation projects with MAP Grammar 227 (5) Not only Germans but also European people tend to clarify differences and discuss them openly. So, I think this feature has existed in Europe for a long time. (6) Japan is an island country. So, we have to get along with others. So Japanese tend to avoid disagreement with each other. (7) There are original communication systems in each countries. Westerners usually assert their own opinions directly, whereas Japanese people tend to tell others indirectly what they feel negatively rather than to explain to them directly and logically. Japanese people want to avoid conflict or disagreement with each other. To research features of communication, an experiment was conducted. In this experiment, Germans did not make a compliment a girl who knitted her own sweater. They told her their true feelings. On the other hand, American people complimented her and American people regarded Germans as unsociable. In short, Americans tend to pay attention to social manners, while Germans think it’s more polite to give their own opinions honestly than to flatter. Not only Germans but also all Europeans tend to clarify differences and discuss them openly. So, I think this feature has existed in Europe from a long time ago. Japan is an island country. So, our way of thinking was not influenced by other countries. And it is important for the people who live the island country to get along with others. So, Japanese people tend to avoid conflict or disagreement with each other. However, sometimes we need to tell our true feelings. It is a Japanese weak point but we have to conquer it to communicate with other countries [sic].

Discussion This section will discuss the four primary points of this task and some insight obtained from the student’s writing earlier. First, despite some difficulties in understanding certain vocabulary and background information students gain an understanding of the content material. The Book Talk Worksheet requires them to construct sentences based on this material and write them down using the MAP Grammar framework. In this way, the students pay greater attention to the subject and the verb, even when they were not located together. In the sample of the student’s worksheet, the subjects (Japanese and Germans) were added by the student who is impressed by sentences such as “The Japanese direct a point of agreement in the form of pre-established harmony by taking a noncommittal attitude, and thereby avoid conflict or disagreement with each other” and “Germans tend to express their own opinions directly, feeling that honesty is more important than discomfort”, respectively. Second, students can avoid making global errors. The MAP Grammar framework enables students to construct sentences in correct word order without heavily relying on metalanguage. Japanese students tend to make mistakes in word order as well as to omit the subject, both of which are a result of influence

228

Hiroshi Yamada

from their L1. In the student’s writing, however, there are no mistakes in terms of word order or the omission of subjects, although there are some local errors. Third, students can deliver a presentation in open-style. In open-style, personal pronouns and the active voice are frequently used. These features can be seen in the student’s script and create a speaking style more attuned to fluent English within their presentation. When giving a presentation in English, less proficient learners of English are likely to prepare a script beforehand, and then they simply read it aloud. In such cases, the speech resembles a style found in an academic research chapter, and the audience has difficulty in following it. The Book Talk Worksheet, however, makes it easier to write a script in open-style; in truth, students may still prepare a full script for recitation, though with the help of MAP Grammar, the students’ spoken English becomes more natural and is easier to understand. Fourth, the students’ level of motivation for conducting quality research and delivering natural presentations may be strengthened. There are two possible reasons for this: i.

ii.

The MAP Grammar task leads students to express their opinion in comprehensible English. Thus, they can deliver a clear, effective speech without the anxiety that their presentation is too difficult for students or the audience to understand. The students appear calm and at ease when they give presentations before an audience. This task facilitates the students’ ability to read information sources, think critically on their own, and form independent opinions. Therefore, it increases their autonomy, which is one of the most crucial aspects for conducting effective research. It instills in them the ability to do so independently, even after they graduate from high school.

Final thoughts As stated earlier, non-native-English speakers tend to simply read a prepared, academic-style script when giving presentations, which makes it difficult for the audience to understand what they are saying. The tasks introduced in this chapter, however, make it easier for the students to write a script in open-style, which makes their presentation easier to follow, even if they should choose to still simply read the script aloud. This is because MAP Grammar focuses on conveying meanings and individualized opinions extracted from research. Moreover, the task introduced in this chapter will help increase the students’ levels of motivation for reading books or articles and subsequently help them become better autonomous learners. In this chapter, the Q-A session typically following a presentation is not analyzed. However, it is one of the important aspects of a realistic presentation scenario. Accordingly, it would be beneficial to allow the students a chance to ask and answer one another’s questions after their presentations are delivered. Additionally, the content and influence of a Q-A session varies in accordance

Presentation projects with MAP Grammar 229 with the group of students asking questions. For example, when a group consists of students (audience) who share the same interests or background as the presenter (and his or her topic), they will ask questions and contribute related, detailed ideas specific to the topic. On the other hand, when a group consists of students who have different background knowledge, they can offer feedback that juxtaposes the presented material with ideas from various different perspectives. Exposure to both scenarios would be beneficial for students.

References Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399 Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international conference setting. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 41–64. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.003 Shimamura, T., & Takeuchi, O. (2011). What is an appropriate style for academic presentations by scientists? JACET Journal, 52, 51–70. Suzuki, T. (Ed.). (2012). Koukousei no tame no “kenkyu” note: Sougouteki na gakusyu/ kadai kenkyu de hagukumu arata na gakuryoku [“Research” note for high school students: New scholastic ability cultivated in an integrated study and a task-oriented research]. Tokyo: Gakuji Publishing. Tajino, A. (2011). “Imijun” eisakubun no susume [Encouragement of “the order of meanings” English composition]. Tokyo: Iwanami junior paperbacks.

21 MAP on the job Applying the order of meanings to an English for occupational purposes setting James W. Gray This chapter describes the implementation of a MAP Grammar, or MAP, with an English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) content-based instructional setting. The learners in this EOP class were recent university graduates from around Japan about to complete their law enforcement training. The EOP component consisted of 27 hours of task-based language learning over ten days. Information about the learners is provided in Figure 21.1. Age/grade

19 to 25 (High school or university graduates)

Level

Elementary to upper intermediate (CEFR A2 to B2)

MAP task time

10 to 90 minutes

Preparation time

10 minutes

Resources/materials

Variable

Figure 21.1 Learner information

Communication for cops The curriculum for this EOP class centers on communication techniques for law enforcement officers. There are five major themes designed to build communication skills and although the material is covered in English, these skills are also readily applicable to the everyday Japanese language-centered working life of the officers. The central theme throughout the sessions is that police officers must view communication at all levels as their most valuable law enforcement tool because those who do not communicate well will not succeed professionally and what’s more, may not survive. Content topics for the class include 1) communication as a process, 2) nonverbal messaging, 3) active listening, 4) use of positive questions and 5) ‘doing’ communication. Such communication training is the reason 97% of all arrests are made without physical control (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). The police officers actively study how to build rapport and empathetically take command to communicate alternatives and consequences. In the EOP sessions, these practices

MAP on the job 231 are explicitly taught and then explored by recounting their use by actual on-duty police officers.

EOP and MAP theory These EOP classes are indicative of most EOP environments as they bring language instruction to a narrow set of skills that are essential for accomplishing specific tasks. EOP learners are usually non-academic language learners. They most often are adults uninterested in academia engaged in employment that demands the use of specific English communication skills. EOP classes are usually intense periods of concentrated study over a few days focused on practical applicable skills necessary to accomplish professional goals. The primary professional goal for these police cadets within the EOP course is to learn and practice communicative techniques that facilitate positive communication and rapport building with supervisors, coworkers and civilians whom they will encounter in the line of their law enforcement duties. Within this setting, MAP’s functional mapping of meaning at the word level is a springboard to explore mapping meaning at other levels of communication, providing a fast track to intelligibility. This assures that, officers can be confident that their message will be communicated successfully despite making minor grammatical mishaps. Throughout these EOP sessions, we routinely speak of how officers are interpreting and communicating meaning indirectly, via positive questions and within key communicative concepts. MAP’s functional parameters (α, Who, Does, What, Where, When) lay the groundwork to support this confident meaning-making, thereby freeing officers to concentrate on communication techniques and move them forward towards professional goals. MAP essentially creates a hands-free grammatical environment. All the EOP classes in these training sessions were content meaning-based. All grammatical form instruction was on an incidental basis and housed within MAP’s functional approach to grammar instruction. This approach suits the EOP environment well since it motivates learners by keeping the focus of the classroom instruction on the skills and practices related to professional goals. Content was communicated to the officers via videos, lectures, storytelling and readings, whereas output emphasized spoken English. In-class tasks were often integrated since MAP benefits from a written format.

MAP training techniques The diversity of EOP environments presents a challenge when designing a lesson plan that is flexible enough to be useful for so many different situations. To this end, the rest of this article focuses on generic MAP training techniques that can be applied to any content or material. These techniques are housed via the content of the law enforcement EOP setting since this provides a convenient means to explore the use of MAP in any setting. The ultimate goal of these techniques and accompanying training is to internalize MAP’s functional parameters so they

232

James W. Gray

can automatically be applied to meaningful communication whether speaking, writing or reading. The training techniques begin with MAP Mapping and then move on to what I refer to as Planting, Doubling Down, Pairing, Zooming and Meaning Building. These techniques work in concert to allow learners to traverse the meaning of grammar and bring it to functional use in the real world. A dialogue or example from the law enforcement EOP course accompanies each MAP training technique. The content of these examples is specific to the law enforcement communication training undertaken by the police cadets, but it is aimed at trying to give a sense of how the technique could be applied to any EOP area environment or content material.

1. Mapping Mapping refers to the physical tools used to create a meaning map. In practice, any six objects, one for each of MAP’s parameters, will work. An example of a MAP introductory lesson follows. Instructor:

Instructor: Officer 2: Instructor: Officer 3: Instructor: Officer 4: Instructor:

Get into pairs; I am going to give you a task . . . Okay, you have 10 minutes to find six distinct objects. Each object must have a specific function. I have written the functions on the board. One must connect something, one must always come first, one must have working parts, one must have three parts, one must be from a place, and one from a known time. Ready, go. (10 minutes later) Okay, times up and I see most groups have six objects. Can you tell me which function this pen meets? Officer 1: The pen has a working part. The ball rolls out the ink. I see. It is a Does. How about this one? It says made in Japan on the back. Ok, that is a Where. How about your coffee cup? It has three parts: the lid, the cup and the coffee. There is a bit left. That is a What. How about this one? My watch tells the time. Okay, a When. Good, now tell me what all this has to do with law enforcement. Talk it over with your partner. You have five minutes.

No groups were able to make the connection between the objects on the table in front of them and law enforcement. The instructor took the time to outline the tenants of how MAP is related to better communication and how that would be applied directly to police work. Instructor: Officer 6:

All right, Now I want you to order your objects in line with the MAP parameters of α, Who, Does, What, Where, When. Like this?

MAP on the job 233 Instructor: Officer 2:

Officer 3: Instructor:

Okay, talk to your partner and check the function of each object. The paper clip connects. It is α. My dice are Who because seven is my first lucky number. Your electric dictionary has moving parts so it is Does, Your cup has three parts it is What and the flag from my desk is Where and When is my lunch ticket. Great, now everyone get a word board and put the objects in the right order on the board. Please remember the boards are plastic so don’t write on them. Once you have your objects laid out on the board I want you to go through the sentences using the board. Remember, MAP uses the physical location on the board for meaning. So, I want you to actually touch the location of the words when you are referring to them.

This format best met the EOP class’s emphasis on spoken English but could easily be adapted to writing sentences on paper. For clarity, the sentences have been printed in Figure 21.2 in a MAP context. As the EOP sessions progressed, a number of mapping tools were used. These included magic markers for underlining text in handouts, colored dye and pieces of felt cloth. All of these mapping tools served as physical location markers for officer’s spoken language as they related content. Such mapping tools facilitate a physical connection to the grammatical function of the words. After the first week, the use of physical mapping tools was replaced by speaking the parameters themselves. Also, α, Who, Does, What, Where, When were spoken as a reminder to adhere to the MAP pattern when officers were at a loss for words or experienced difficulty in communication.

α

WHO

DOES (IS)

1.

Mike

Played.

2.

Sue

liked

her teacher

last year.

3.

Paul

saw

a movie

yesterday.

4.

They

saw

me home.

5.

John

called

her his wife.

6.

Martin works

7.

Marie

left

her keys

8.

He

stopped

the police officer

and 9. Where

WHOM/ WHAT(HOW)

WHERE

in Tokyo.

asked

for directions.

is

the noodle shop?

Figure 21.2 Practicing mapping sentences

at work.

WHEN

234

James W. Gray

2. Planting Planting refers to rooting grammar structures into specific locations in the MAP pattern. This is particularly useful for learners to remember the place to plant words as they progress through a sentence. The planted location aids in accuracy since following the pattern helps to ensure the officer is understood. A common planting exchange might be as follows. Officer Instructor: Officer: Instructor: Officer: Instructor:

Officer: Instructor:

The witness went to home after the accident. You said. “The witness went to home”. Yes. Could you put “to home” into MAP? In Where. I understand how you could plant that in Where. “home” can be a place but is can also be an atmosphere. “To her house” would be better as a Where because it is a real physical building. A How then . . . “The witness went home”. Yes, good.

In the example, “The witness went to home after the accident”. The officer correctly planted most of the parts including recognizing “after the accident” as a When. Her planting of “home” as a Where demonstrated her understanding of the word as a simple physical location. Replanting the word as a HOW, how you feel about something gave her better insight into the meaning of the word and facilitated grammatical correctness.

3. Doubling down Doubling Down refers to planting two or more word/phrases in the same location. Within the MAP sentence pattern, Doubling Down is not grammatically incorrect although it can be. It is entirely possible for a given MAP location to accommodate one or more occupant. The practice of Doubling Down proved very useful on the second day of class while a pair worked through a set of pictures depicting people engaged in a variety of different tasks. Officer 1: Officer 2: Officer 1: Officer 2: Officer 1: Officer 2:

The man is watch TV. That’s Doubling Down. Uh? Look, Who- Does -Does -What. Ok, the man watches TV. Or the man is watching TV.

In the example, Doubling Down allowed for a clarification of event timing. In the example that follows, it is used to provide a more detailed description as part of an active listening exercise. The role of the officer in this active listening

MAP on the job 235 exercise is to reflect back meaning and include an acknowledgement of the other person’s feelings. Officer: Tourist: Officer: Tourist: Officer: Tourist: Officer: Tourist: Officer: Tourist:

How can I help you today? I was overcharged for my lunch. Really? I paid 30,000 yen1for a bowl of noodles 2in that shop 1over there2. Yes, that’s a lot. It is unusual. Ya, there was a menu on the wall but no prices. No prices that must have been confusing. I ordered what the person next to me had. That was a good idea. Let’s go check the shop but I think without posted prices there is little I can do to help. I should be more careful. Thank you.

After this practice, the instructor points out how the tourist Doubled Down on the information provided by including both the price and the item in the What location. He also Doubled Down on the Where, emphasizing the close proximity of the shop to the police officer’s location and indeed the officer recognizes this emphasis and suggests they check the shop together. This emphatic emphasis is a second functional feature of Doubling Down. By providing doubled the required information in any specific MAP location the speakers is able to raise the importance and emotional impact of that given location in the MAP pattern.

4. Pairing Pairing refers to planting words together within the same MAP location to demonstrate how the shared location allows them to work together towards the same function. The following excerpt from class written material discusses the importance of viewing communication with civilians as an ongoing process of information gathering. The officer stopped paying attention to his surroundings at the moment he determined the point of the encounter. A MAP analysis of this sentence shows how the Pairing of ‘to’ and ‘at the moment’ with other words in their respective MAP locations clearly defines the role they play in Where and When the officer is placing himself in danger by not viewing communication as a process. Pairing makes grammatical function explicit because it highlights how collections of words, in this case, particles, work together to determine meaning. This functional approach creates a grammatical understanding that supports a meaningful awareness of potentially lifesaving content.

236

James W. Gray

5. Zooming Zooming refers to focusing in on a grammar point in a specific MAP location, explicitly teaching it and then zooming out to show its functional purpose within the content. Officer: Instructor: Officer:

Instructor: Officer: Instructor: Officer: Instructor:

Officer: Instructor: Officer: Instructor: Officer: Instructor:

I don’t understand this. Where? Here “Negative questions create a dead end and distrust between the officer and a person, whereas positive questions motivate and empower a person by allowing them to want to answer the questions”. Yes, that is tough, what part don’t you understand? Negative questions just get you a yes or no, right. Yes, pretty much. I don’t understand the “whereas” part. The “whereas” I think would be an α. It is connecting what you get from negative questions that are Doubling Down by the way to what you get from positive questions. So what do you get from positive questions? Look, the α is right next to the Who and then . . . Well, and then it Doubles Down on the Does, motivate and empower, and then let’s see there are . . . . 5 What. So the What of positive questions is? People answer positive questions because we allow them to, they want to. Yes, a positive question creates a want in the person. They want to answer them.

In the dialogue, the instructor uses MAP to zoom down to the word level and provide a functional explanation of ‘whereas’ and then back up to the content level to maintain a focus on meaning. This brief stepping away from content allows the parts of the sentence to be broken into their functional units yet highlights the role they play in supporting the meaning of the entire sentence. The instructor then encourages the officer to follow the MAP pattern to understand the remainder of the content.

6. Meaning building This chapter has focused on using MAP for relatively simple spoken English. However, MAP has more than sufficient depth to aid in the understanding or building of even the most complex constructions. MAP can take a sentence from any text and simultaneously provide an understanding of the meaning as well as how the grammar functions to convey that meaning. The example that follows is an excerpt from written material in the EOP class. This particular sentence gave

MAP on the job 237 α

WHO

Just by

if

DOES (IS) WHOM/ WHAT(HOW) paying attention

a police office

knows

the information a victim

is leaking

WHERE WHEN

to other’s unconscious communication matches the emotions

on display and

the feeling

in their words.

Figure 21.3 In the MAP pattern

many officers difficulty until they were challenged to apply it to the MAP pattern. The meaning of this complex construction becomes easy to understand by breaking it down into its MAP locations (see Figure 21.3). “Just by paying attention to other’s unconscious communication a police officer knows if the information a victim is leaking matches the emotions on display and the feelings in their words”. In the example, MAP helped deconstruct complex functional meaning but learners can equally use it as a tool to construct or proof complex written work.

Conclusion An EOP environment demands quick, operational and accessible pedagogies to turn theory into practice. This chapter has demonstrated how MAP can meet all three of these requirements. MAP is based in everyday words, which made it accessible to all the officers. MAP provided a single clear pattern to follow thereby operationalizing officers’ ability to start talking with confidence. Finally, MAP is well suited to the world of EOP since it can act as a sort of springboard for both efficient and effective teaching and learning to bring newly acquired professional skills back on the job.

Reference U.S. Department of Justice. (2011). Contacts between police and the public, 2008 (NCJ 234599). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Epilogue A message for teachers

As we have learnt from reading the chapters in this book, MAP Grammar takes a new two-dimensional approach to PG. It is truly pedagogical because we can also employ it to guide syllabus design, inform assessment, and structure classroom activity.

Syllabus design MAP Grammar demonstrates a two- (or three-) dimensional grammar map in which grammatical items are interrelated with one another through the Order of Meanings. This map tells us where we are now and what we should teach next. In other words, if used with care, MAP Grammar can help us design and implement syllabus plans which are meaningful to the specific needs of our learners.

Understanding and coping with learners’ problems The horizontal axis and the vertical axis of MAP Grammar help us understand our learners’ problems such as an inability to form complex sentences or to use the form of ‘lived’ correctly. The former problem can be viewed as a matter of the Order of Meanings (i.e., the horizontal axis) while the latter is a matter of the use of the ‘past tense’ (i.e., the vertical axis). This capacity to facilitate understanding allows us to analyze our learners’ errors in such a way that we may find exactly where they are having trouble. If a learner is struggling with the vertical axis, for example, we may guide the learner back through individual items to discover where the problem has originated.

Classroom activities and teaching techniques MAP Grammar can make it possible to teach grammar systemically and dynamically. For learners, too, the ability from early stages of learning to express their own stories and opinions – not just repeat textbook example sentences – allows for more authentic communication. This independent degree of learner engagement gives us more freedom to develop a broader range of creative learning tasks

240

Epilogue

that will bring out the best of our talents and skills, and help to build the liveliest communicative classroom learning environment. MAP Grammar can serve as a flexible ‘OS’ of grammar so that we can make use of it in our own ways; that is, with different kinds of ‘application software’ we can customize MAP Grammar according to our learners’ characteristics and our teaching situations. It is important to remember that there is no one particular ‘correct’ way to use MAP Grammar. In this book, we have used meaning units in a conventional manner, but please be aware that the pedagogical value of the Order of Meanings lies not in merely putting words and phrases into their appropriate places in the order; rather, it is the order itself that is important. All the authors and I hope that you, as teachers, will enjoy a degree of freedom in implementing MAP Grammar in your own way that best fits your own teaching styles and teaching situations. It is our sincere hope that this book will allow you to create and enjoy your own MAP Grammar! Akira Tajino Kyoto, 2017

Index

accuracy 114, 121, 123, 129, 145, 150, 151, 234 action 2, 11, 17, 36 action chain 54–7 actuality 27, 33–7 ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate) model 109–12 adverbial 2, 17, 30, 69, 207 affective factor 142 agent 2, 16, 17, 36, 54–7 assessment 40, 49, 150, 191, 239 assistant language teacher (ALT) 74 authentic 68, 239; conversation 218 autonomous learner 228 because 13, 209, 210 BECOME-language 58, 59 bottom-up process 48, 137, 138, 144 catalyst 80, 207 circumstance 2, 13, 57, 77, 186 classroom viii, ix, 1, 5, 24, 33, 39, 41, 49, 65, 68, 69, 71, 73, 77–80, 83, 84, 92, 95–100, 113, 137, 139, 149, 160–3, 168–70, 175, 185, 186, 191, 197, 201, 202, 212, 222, 239, 240 clause: production 149; structure 2, 3, 11, 12, 14–16, 77, 100, 140, 200 cognitive: applied linguistics 61; process 124, 185 coherence 192 cohesion 65, 186, 192, 193 collaborative exploration 160 Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) 86, 162, 175, 186, 196, 202, 212, 214, 220, 222, 230 complexity ix, 33, 34, 36, 114, 133, 186, 207

compression: mathematical 26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37; meaning 26, 32, 34–8; theoretical 26, 29, 30, 35, 36 computer assisted language learning (CALL) 83, 139 conscious awareness 76 content and language integrated learning (CLIL) 116, 117, 126 content-based language instruction (CBLI) 116, 117, 125, 126 contiguity 103, 104 cooperative learning 125, 212 core-consciousness 26, 27, 38 corrective feedback 80 course design 109, 114 Create a Research Space (CARS) model 70 critical thinking 185, 186 curriculum 49, 73, 80, 92, 95, 116, 120, 126, 168, 201, 230 deductive reasoning 48 deliberate learning see intentional learning design criteria 39, 46 developmental sequence 75 direct object (DO) 29, 51, 54 discourse community 66, 68, 71 DO-language 58, 59 elicitation 80, 106, 149, 150, 152, 153, 156, 157 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) 1, 3, 5, 9, 65, 66, 73, 74, 77, 95, 113, 116, 148, 157, 160, 162–4, 169, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 212, 213 English as a Second Language (ESL) 1, 5, 9, 95, 98, 116, 121, 148, 201, 212

242

Index

English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 70 English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) 230–3, 236, 237 English for Specific Purposes (ESP) viii, 5, 65, 66, 70, 71 enjoyableness 142, 144, 145 event construal 53, 54, 56 exemplar-based learning 75, 77 explicit 29, 30, 42, 48, 68, 77, 79, 131, 146, 157, 222, 235 Exploratory Practice (EP) 160–3, 169, 170 extended consciousness 26, 27, 38 first language (L1) 5, 16, 26, 28, 29, 31, 37, 42, 61, 74–6, 80, 120, 121, 196–9, 228 flipped teaching 112, 113 fluency 133 form-meaning connection 77 formulaic sequences (formulaic units) 76, 129, 134 four strands 128, 130, 134 Gagné’s nine events of instruction 105, 109 genre 65–8, 70, 71, 119, 192 global error 2, 11, 12, 31, 32, 36, 37, 42, 70, 80, 105, 106, 108, 112, 114, 130, 132, 151, 201, 217, 227 goal 2, 130, 131 grammar: cognitive 5, 51; consciously disembodied 26, 27, 35–7; drills 178; functional 65, 186, 187; inter- 167, 169; levels of 40; nonconsciously embodied 26, 27, 36; scientific 29, 30; Systemic Functional 65; traditional 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 116 graphic: literacy 120; organizer 126, 148, 149, 152, 156, 159; representation 120, 121, 126 Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) 2, 11–13, 17, 23, 73; Rheme 65–7, 77; Theme 65–7, 77 heuristic 126, 203 high school student 91, 145, 208, 223 homeroom teacher (HRT) 74, 79 horizontal axis 3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 24, 84, 92, 106, 107, 239

ICT 5, 83, 84, 92 idea units (IU) 141–3 Imijun 5, 84–6, 88, 93, 99, 100, 175, 176, 179, 180, 184, 202, 217, 218 implicit 48, 68, 74, 77, 79, 98, 133 indirect object (IO) 29, 51, 52 inductive reasoning 48 input 31, 48, 74–8, 83, 92, 98, 130–4, 138, 142, 175, 176, 212, 218, 226; hypothesis 76 instructional design (ID) 5, 103, 109, 114 intelligibility 223, 231 intentional learning (deliberate learning) 103, 132 intrinsic reward 96, 99 item learning 77 Japanese teachers of English (JTE) 74, 80 Kirkpatrick’s four-level learning evaluation model 113, 114 knowledge: framework 117; structure 116–22, 126 language-focused learning 130, 132, 212, 218 language socialization 117, 118 learner-as-teacher 161 learning: principle 48, 104; process 83, 101, 103–4, 106, 110, 113 lesson plan 5, 48, 49, 113, 173, 212–14, 231 linear model 211 listening 5, 31, 76, 78, 87, 130, 133, 137–46, 183, 230, 234 local error 11, 12, 31, 42, 105, 132, 134, 217, 228 location 2, 13, 16, 54 materials development 49, 109 meaningful input and output 218 mind mapping 176 modes of communication 192 morphology 128 motivation viii, 5, 23, 53, 83, 91, 92, 95–7, 99–101, 104, 110, 111, 143, 145, 162, 170, 175, 183, 206, 228 move 66, 70 natural path 56, 58, 60, 61 non-native speakers of English 222

Index non-proficient students 198, 200 noticing 27, 76, 78, 80, 103, 112, 132, 134 noun 14, 24, 29, 30, 36, 37, 44, 45, 52, 53, 69, 107, 128, 200, 201, 203, 208 object 1, 2, 12, 16, 29, 44, 45, 47, 51–8, 60, 61, 79, 80, 97, 130–2, 148, 150, 186, 207, 232, 233 objective 41, 42, 47, 66, 73, 74, 84, 92, 104–6, 109, 110, 112, 117, 126 orientation basis 43 output 65, 76, 98, 114, 130, 132–4, 199, 212, 218 pair work 79, 185, 198 parsing 19, 138–44, 146, 167 participant 2, 13, 17, 54–9, 77, 79, 186 pedagogically designed 28 peer feedback 113, 226 perception 51, 55, 58, 138, 142–4, 146, 226 picture description 202–4, 208, 210, 211 potentiality 33–8 practitioner 5, 41, 42, 46, 49, 79, 83, 84, 95, 134, 160–3, 168–70 prepositional phrase 30 presentation 9, 31, 48, 70, 88, 113, 186, 194, 222, 223, 226, 228 present perfect tense 100, 212–14, 216–18 process 2, 13, 17, 57, 77, 118, 186 productive skill 31, 88, 148, 160, 163, 202 proficiency level 24, 129, 144, 149, 155, 157, 222 puzzle 89, 91, 160, 162, 163, 169, 170 quality of classroom life 162 quality of knowledge 39, 42 reaction paper 160, 162 readiness 155–6 reading 23, 28, 31, 75, 80, 87, 94, 108, 121, 124, 130, 132–3, 138, 145, 148, 149, 162–4, 167, 169, 183, 194, 197, 199, 208, 226, 228, 231, 232, 239 recitation 196–200, 228 reinforcement 103–5

243

relative clause 146, 148–52, 154–7, 159 repetition 70, 103, 104, 138, 139, 193, 213 reproduction 196, 211 Rheme see Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) rhetorical structure 66, 68–71, 121, 185 role play 98, 212–14, 216–18, 220 rule-based learning 77 salience 53, 55–8 Saussure 10, 51 scaffolding 79, 132, 134, 148, 156, 176, 178 schema 37, 44, 52–3, 56, 75, 78, 116, 119, 121, 185–7 second language acquisition (SLA) 11, 48, 73–6, 83, 148 self: concept 97, 101; determination 97; efficacy 95, 96 semantic role 2, 16, 17, 73, 75, 77–80, 97, 99, 130–3, 186–7, 218 sentence-building strategy 202 setting 56, 57, 61 seven clause patterns 2, 12, 16, 17 simple sentence 19, 148, 178, 202, 203 speaking ix, 16, 31, 35, 36, 41, 65, 66, 78, 80, 87, 88, 120, 130, 132, 133, 140, 141, 145, 176, 183, 185, 202, 207, 215, 222, 223, 228, 232, 233 spoken discourse 193 STEP (Society for Testing English Proficiency) test 203, 208, 211 stepwise application 202 subject: omission of 228 systemic approach 9, 119, 126 systemic linguistics 118 teacher-as-learner 161 teaching English to young learners (TEYL) 73, 74, 77, 79 Theme see Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) three-dimensional model 3, 131 top-down processes 137, 138 translation 29, 58, 59, 67, 84, 88, 89, 92, 98, 128, 149–51, 155, 156, 164, 197 transparency 117, 126 two-dimensional model 14 usage-based model 75 usefulness 142, 144, 145

244

Index

user’s perspective 26, 31, 32, 35, 36 utilization 138, 142, 144, 145 verb 2, 5, 14, 15, 17, 22, 29, 30, 37, 38, 41, 48, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 77, 79, 80, 107, 128, 131, 139, 140, 155, 176–8, 181, 192, 207, 208, 217, 227 vertical axis 3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22–4, 106, 107, 239 visual aid 116, 126, 185, 187, 207

vocabulary 5, 65, 67–71, 75, 86, 88, 91, 121, 122, 128–34, 138, 142, 162, 164, 175, 176, 178, 191, 203, 217, 227 working memory 126, 203 writing 5, 31, 47, 66, 67, 69–71, 84, 87, 88, 98, 100, 120, 132–3, 145, 148, 149, 157, 163, 175, 176, 179, 180, 182, 183, 196, 210, 212, 216, 217, 227, 228, 232, 233