Sentence Machine Argument Analysis

The Sentence Machine argument (for) vs The Lexical Chunks Argument (against)

The sentence machine argument argues that without explicit teaching of the grammar rules, L2 learners “item learn” (Thornbury, 1999) where they establish a one on one relationship with either a letter, phrase, sound or morpheme. Students have the capacity to retain and retrieve a limited amount of information so therefore without the explicit teaching of grammar it would be impossible for them to generate new sentences and create limitless sentences.

The Lexical Chunks argument states that vocabulary, whole phrases and idioms are also item learning. It is believed that children acquire these chunks at a young age and as they develop in the language, it gets divided

Grammar gives the students structure to formulate better production skills especially in writing.

The communication argument is about the learner acquiring the language through implicit instruction. It is felt that the language should used in real life situations where it has meaning to the student and where the language is used in order to be learned. There would be no need for the students to understand the rules. “Studying the rules of grammar is [therefore] simply a waste of time”. (Thornbury, 1999)

The fossilization Argument vs The Acquisition Argument

The fossilization argument argues that students do not progress beyond the basic level of linguistically competency without explicit learning of the rules of a language. It believes that students need to be aware of the language framework in order for them to achieve higher levels of

This (innate Universal Grammar) helps to explain similarities in the developmental order of the firsta dn the second language acquisition, which is different to the order in which grammatical items are presented in most textbooks. This argument could also be called “the obsolete approach to teaching grammar as the order in which grammar is taught needs to be revised.

The rule of law argument vs The knowledge-how argument

The rule of law argues that grammar enables the transmission of knowledge from the teacher to the learner as this structured system can be taught, learned and tested. Grammar satisfies the need for rules, order and discipline in institutional contexts such as school.

The knowledge-how argues that language is learned by experimental learning – learning by doing – like riding a bike. It is not simply learnt by studying a language because learners have difficulties in transferring their knowledge into skill. Rather studying grammar, the learner needs classroom experience that stimulates the kind of condition in which s/he is going to use the language.

Learner Expectations 1 vs Learner Expectations