its users are able to communicate with each other. Grammar can refer to the formal analysis and descriptions of the rules of the language, which is known as
‗descriptive grammar‘. Grammar can also refer to the rules for the correct use of a language which may be prescribed for its users, which is known as ‗prescriptive
grammar‘. Based on the aforementioned theories of grammar, I conclude that
grammar is, fundamentally speaking, the pattern of language. What makes experts take differing positions in defining grammar is how they see the pattern. If the
pattern is seen as rules, then grammar is positioned in a prescriptive manner. If the pattern is viewed as ways of people in using their language, then grammar is
defined in descriptive ways. Finally, if the pattern is considered as resources, then grammar is viewed as systemic and functional.
b. The Classification of Grammar
Coumar 2011: 2 identifies two types of grammar and their characteristics:
1 Formal Grammar Grammar Translation Method Prescriptive Grammar
a It consists of elaborate rules, definitions and the structures of the language
b It deals mainly with the physical form of words, word endings and word groups
c It classifies words into parts of speech and sentences
d Reading and writing are considered essential
e Spoken English is mostly ignored
f The prescriptive grammar focuses on correction
commit to user
g Deviation from rules is not allowed
h Students learn the rules and their functions in communication are neglected.
2 Functional Grammar Incidental Grammar
a This grammar is learnt by students unconsciously while learning the language
b The focus is on appropriate utterances than on grammatical sentences
c The functional grammar does not focus much on the form
d Change in the rules of language is allowed
e It is the grammar in operation
f It deals with the ability to use language grammatically.
c. The Role of Teaching Grammar in Language Education
The role of grammar instruction in second or foreign language learning has always been a heated debate. The progress in all aspects of language teaching
has led to shift the focus of grammar teaching objectives from the formal instruction towards communicative effectiveness. Moreover, the appearance of the
Natural and Communicative Approaches in the seventies and eighties, has led to an endless and countless debate regarding the efficiency of explicit and implicit
grammar teaching approaches in EFLESL classrooms and to a great deal of research that either maximize or minimize the importance of grammar instruction
in EFL ESL contexts. Grammar has and still holds a vital position in language teaching Ellis
2006. Nowadays, researchers are no longer focusing on the inevitability of grammar instruction. However, their current concern is to what extend teachers
commit to user
need to direct the learners attention towards understanding grammatical rules in meaningful contexts and natural situations.
Hinkel and Fotos 2002 report that recent research studies have found that grammar teaching is essential since it enables students to attain high level of
proficiency in both accuracy and fluency. Krashen 1999 affirms that students‘
explicit knowledge of grammar will develop their communicative skills, enhance their language proficiency and enable them to edit or monitor their written and
spoken work. Long and Richards 1987 indicate that grammar and vocabulary play key-roles in the four language skills to create and achieve communicative
activities. Long 1991 suggests that in the formal education, teaching grammar is unavoidable for language teachers. Therefore, Ellis 2002 strongly advocates
focusing on forms within communicative approaches in a second language curriculum.
On the other side, Krashen 1981, who strongly advocates the Natural Approach, claim that formal grammar instruction may lead to ineffective learning
outcomes, moreover, students could naturally acquire the language if exposed to plentiful
―comprehensible input‖. According to this claim, if people could learn their first language without formal instruction, they could learn a second language
without formal instruction as well. Krashen 1982: 21 clarifies that learners should use the
comprehensible input which is ―slightly beyond their present proficiency‖ to deduce rules. He also adds that acquisition takes place ―when we
understand language that contains structure that is a little beyond where we are now‖.
commit to user
Ellis 1997: 48 explains that Krashen tends to adopt the so- called ―zero-
option‖ which ignores explicit grammar teaching at all and puts the emphasis on language acquisition through natural communicative activities or situations.
Following Krashen‘s claim, Nassaji and Fotos 2004 declare that not only grammar instruction was ineffective but also it could create learning difficulties
and discourages learners from getting involved in successful communication. Therefore, they suggest that it should be abandoned.
Krashen‘s claims have had a significant influence on language teaching and led to decreasing the attention towards the teaching of grammatical rules and
to a greater tendency towards teaching language through natural and meaningful communicative
activities. The increased focus on the learners‘ use of the actual language in order to improve their communicative abilities has weakened the
emphasis on grammar teaching. VanPatten 1990: 296 states ―attention to form in
the input competes with attention to meaning‖. Therefore, teachers‘ attitudes
towards the importance of grammar teaching in foreign and second language have radically changed.
d. The Practice of Teaching Grammar
