Due to the growing cultural exchange and international communication during the last century, learning foreign languages has become one of the most essential demands of our society, and can be compared with overall computer study.
Being so widely spread throughout the world, language learning reveals lots of problems as people with different cultural background and unequal personal abilities expose themselves to foreign languages, bearing in mind various purposes and reasons: from elementary speaking skills for travelling abroad to academic writing, business language and learning just for fun included.
Such diverse aims of language study required a great deal of assorted teaching techniques which were actually tried on during 1950s-80s.
At that time grammar seemed to be the only obstacle in teaching speaking. Indeed, after having spent boring labourious years on grammar drills most of the students failed to produce even a comparatively short fluent utterance. It became evident that drilling separate grammar issues did not contribute much to intonation, rhythm and pronunciation which may alter the connotation of the word or phrase. Learning grammar rules somehow prevented from using “functional language” which should be practised in guided speaking activities and ‘real-life’ situations.
So, grammar was vigorously rejected; first – by native language teachers, then – from foreign language classes as well.
New communicative approach, offering grammar skills through reading/speaking activities, proved its attraction to students as they got highly motivated and started speaking as if by magic. Proclaiming grammar a useful tool, the teachers applied numerous activities to link phrasal verbs, prepositions, idioms and collocations with images, emotions or situations in minds of their students. Acquiring fluent speaking in target language became the feature of this method.
Later with much discontent researchers noted a correlation between the decline in teaching traditional grammar and a decline in test scores and poor writing skills, as naturally it is easier to speak language then to write. Favouring creative skills rather than productive led to inaccuracy in speech, both spoken and written.
Another complication in language teaching is caused by simplifying tendency via the Internet. Offering billions of free language learning resources, the Internet lacks in focusing on proper language – since people manage to understand each other they pay no attention to grammar accuracy or enriching vocabulary.
In many ways, the debate pros and cons traditional teaching approach has created a negative view of grammar.
That is a pity. The best reasons for teaching grammar are positive.
It seems logical that grammar should be taught together with speaking/listening. At lower stages learning grammar creates a sense of successful studying, which is very important for further motivation. Investigating grammar rules, describing forms and functions introduce students into communicative speaking from the very beginning, when they are not trained enough to discuss other topics.
It is well known that traditional grammar teaching creates better and more accurate writers, whereas writing is considered to be one of main steps in mastering speaking.
So, one may say, that now we are facing a ‘back to basics’ alarm.
The truth is in the middle, as usual.