2
Current theory recognizes the value of some grammar study, but also recognizes its limitations. For second language users to use grammatical rules, several very stringent conditions must be met:
First, grammar users must know the rule. This is a profound constraint. Professional grammarians have not described all the rules of any language, textbook writers do not include all the rules they know in texts, teachers do not teach all the rules in the text, students do not learn all the rules presented, students do not remember all the rules they learn, and they cannot use all the rules they remember (some are very complex).
Second, grammar users must have time to apply the rule. This is extremely difficult to do in real conversation.
Third, grammar users need to be thinking about correctness, or focused on form. This is hard to do in while communicating a message of interest.
The only time all three conditions are met for most people is when they take a grammar test, and this is where we see the strongest influence of grammar study. But even then, the impact of grammar study is very modest, and studies show it typically fades after a few months; in other words, teaching a rule, even for many hours over several weeks, results in only modestly improved performance primarily on grammar tests, and is rapidly forgotten.7
In addition, case studies show that adept second language performers can apply consciously learned grammar rules to make limited improvements in their writing. These rules, however, are generally not available during real conversation.8
Standards for Success devotes a complete standard to grammar, insisting that foreign language students recognize parts of speech, understand and compare how simple clauses, tense and aspect are used in English and the second language, and requires that students "apply written conventions accurately in English and the target language."9
Theory and research support some study of grammar, but it has consistently shown that the effects of grammar study are very limited. Nowhere is this stated in Standards for Success. Rather, "Structure" is granted an entire category, covering 25% of the total set of Standards.
THE ROLE OF SPEAKING
Theory and research confirm that our ability to speak is a result of language acquisition, not a cause: We acquire language from input, not from output. The evidence for this view comes from several sources:
| - | People simply do not speak or write enough for output to make any significant contribution.10 |
| - | It is possible to improve and attain very high levels of competence without output.11 |
| - | More output does not result in more language acquisition. For example, students in classes that demand more writing do not acquire more of the language,12 and students of English as a foreign language who report more speaking outside of class do not do better on the TOEFL examination; those who read more outside of class, however, do better.13 |
There is, in addition, evidence that forcing students to speak before they feel ready to is extremely anxiety provoking. When asked what aspects of class cause the most anxiety, students consistently put "speaking" on the top of the list.14
Nevertheless, Standards for Success assigns a major role to language production. Standard IV A3 insists that students be "willing to speak in the target language in front of teachers, peers and those who are fluent in the target language," a standard that will encourage pedagogy that puts students in a position of maximum anxiety while doing nothing to improve their language abilities.
THE ROLE OF THE FIRST LANGUAGE
According to current theory, we "fall back" on the first language when we need to produce in the second language but lack competence. The influence of the first language is due, thus, to ignorance, not to interference.15 Consistent with this view are studies showing that the influence of the first language diminishes as students acquire more.16
2