The role of the gramamar teaching: from communcative approaches to the common european framework of reference for languages

• Autores: José López Rama, Gloria Luque Agulló
• Localización: Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas, ISSN 1886-2438, Nº. 7, 2012, págs. 179-192
• Idioma: español
• DOI: 10.4995/rlyla.2012.1134
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen

  • In the history of language teaching, the role of grammar has been addressed by a number of linguistic theories, pedagogies and, currently, within the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF). The way grammar is considered has a decisive influence on pedagogical practices, learning processes and many other areas involved in language teaching. This paper constitutes a revision of how grammar has evolved in the last fifty years paying special attention to its evolving role in both communicative (CLT) and post-communicative approaches and in the CEF.From this revision, some controversial issues concerning the pedagogic value of teaching grammar will arise as well, such as whether grammar is worth teaching in the classroom or not and how it should be taught.Even though there exists a parallel linguistic framework between CLT and the CEF, some issues still need revision concerning the notion of grammatical competence and its role for language teaching.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Anderson, J.R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. New York: Freeman.
  • Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Hokd, Reinhart & Wilson.
  • Bloor, T. (2004). The Functional Analysis of English: a Hallidayan Approach. London; New York: Arnold.
  • Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s Talk. New York: Norton.
  • Celce-Murcia, M. (1988). Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects in the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University...
  • Coyle, D. (2008) “CLIL. A pedagogical approach”, in N. Hornberger (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Berlin: Springer, 1200-1214....
  • Crandall, J. (2000). “Language teacher education”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20:34-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500200032
  • Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (1999). “Pedagogical choices in focus of form” in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom...
  • Ellis, R. (2006). “Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective”, Tesol Quarterly 40/1, 83-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40264512
  • García Mayo and García Lecumberri, (eds.) (2003). Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. London: Multilingual Matters.
  • Gouveia, C.A.M. (2006/7). “The role of a common European framework in the elaboration of national language curricula and syllabuses”, Cadernos...
  • Halliday, M. A. (1997). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
  • Harmer, J. (1997). Teaching and Learning Grammar. London; New York: Longman.
  • Keddle, J.S. (2004). The CEF and the secondary school syllabus, in K. Morrow, (ed.) Insights from the European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University...
  • Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). “Teaching Grammar”, in M. Celce-Murcia (ed.) Teaching English as a Second Language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle,...
  • Lock, G. (1997). Functional English grammar: an Introduction for Second Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Luque, G. (2006). “Overlooking age-related differences”, ELT Journal, 60/4, 365-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl027
  • Morrow, K. (2004) Insights from the European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/elt/general_content/articles/BackgroundtotheCEF.pdf...
  • Newby, D.A. (2003). Cognitive+Communicative Theory of Pedagogical Grammar. Habilitationsschrift. Karl-Francens Universität Graz.
  • Newby, D. (2006). “Teaching grammar and the question of knowledge”, in A.B. Fenner and D. Newby (eds.) Coherence of Principles, Cohesion of...
  • Nunan, D. (2007). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ortega, L. (2000). “El desarrollo de la competencia gramatical oral en una segunda lengua a través de la actuación lingüística: aproximaciones...
  • Ramos, MM. and Luque, G. (2010). “A competence-based tool for constructivist education”, Cultura y Educación, 22/3, 329-344.
  • Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2003). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rutherford, W. E. (1996). Second language grammar: learning and teaching. London; New York: Longman.
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). “Attention”, in P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3-32....
  • Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Spada, N. (2007). “Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects”, International Handbook of English Language Teaching,...
  • Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman.
  • Ur, P. (1999). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732928
  • Vigotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
  • Westera, W. (2001). “Competences in education: a confusion of tongues”, Curriculum Studies, 33, 75-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270120625