Grammatical competence and models of L2 learning

The Common European Framework presents a range of communicative language

competences to be present in language teaching, and one of them is 'grammatical
competence'. In this essay I will investigate and discuss how the CEF interprets
grammatical competence in relation to two different models of language teaching as
presented by Vivian Cook before I go on to discuss which implications this might have for
language teaching and grammar competence in the classroom.

Grammatical competence
On an introductory note the Common European Framework announces an action-
oriented approach which entails a "comprehensive, transparent and coherent frame of
reference for language learning" (CEF, 1996, p. 9) and attempts to ensure an embrace of
"language learning," which "comprises the actions performed by persons who as
individuals and as social agents develop a range of competences, both general and in
particular communicative language competences" (CEF, 1996, p. 9). The Framework
divides communicative competence into three components; linguistic competence,
sociolinguistic competence and pragmatic competence (CEF, 1996, p. 108). This essay
will focus on 'grammatical competence' which is part of a linguistic competence according
to the CEF.

Linguistic competence is an exhaustive and voluminous field, and beyond grammatical

competence, the Framework distinguishes between lexical competence, semantic
competence, phonological competence, orthographic competence and orthoepic
competence (CEF, 1996, p. 109). In this context, grammatical competence is understood
as "knowledge of, and ability to use, the grammatical resources of a language" (CEF, 1996,
p. 112). Simply put, it means to be in the possession of the knowledge which enables the
language learner/user to produce and express meaning by utilizing the embedded
principles of grammatical principles in the target language, as opposed to merely
memorising and reproducing grammar (CEF, 1996, p. 113). The Framework
acknowledges the fact that any language's grammar is highly complex and "defies
definitive or exhaustive treatment", but nonetheless draws up a grammatical organization

1
which involves the specification of elements, categories, classes, structures, processes
and relations (CEF, 1996, p. 113).

Scott Thornbury (1999)  writes that from "a learner's perspective, the ability both to
recognise and to produce well-formed sentences is an essential part of learning a second
language" (Thornbury, 1999, p. 3), but points out that there exists a lot of controversy and
debate on how this ability is best developed and achieved. Grammar competence is a
massive field, and the syllabus outlines the grammatical content to be taught and is
usually represented in the coursebooks which then in turn are the basis for the language
teachers' decisions in regards to what to focus on and what to teach in a grammar context.
Thornbury outlines criteria for grading the grammar syllabus in terms of importance and
include complexity, learnability and teachability where complexity is the most important.
"An item is complex if it has a number of elements, the more elements, the more complex
it is" (Thornbury, 1999, p. 9). Learnability is traditionally measures by the level of
complexity, while teachability on the other hand is the level of ease a grammatical item is
to introduce which means that it is usually introduced early in a language course
(Thornbury, 1999, p. 10).

Two different models of language learning

The Common European Framework comprehensively outlines approaches and
competences which should be applied to language teaching and language learning before
the Framework continues to present more methodological practices in order to answer
questions related to how the learner can carry out the given tasks, activities and processes
in order to develop the competences necessary for communication, how teachers can
facilitate and how education authorities can best plan curricula for modern languages
(CEF, 1996, p. 131) The Framework puts forward a range of general approaches to
language learning which tries to accommodate for the best possible practice for the
language learner to learn a foreign language (L2). The CEF is careful to add that the
"approach to the methodology of learning and teaching has to be comprehensive,
presenting all options in an explicit and transparent way and avoiding advocacy or
dogmatism" (CEF, 1996, p. 142), but rather attempts to provide methods which are the

2
most effective in language learning and teaching in order to ensure the best possible
practices and "the needs of the individual learners in their social context" (CEF, 1996, p.
142). The main intent of the Framework is to present the learner and the teacher with
options.

I have decided to focus on two general models of L2 learning, namely the interaction
approach and the sociocultural SLA theory as discussed by Cook. This is in line with the
'grammatical competence' from the CEF's chapter 6.4 Some methodological options for
modern language learning and teaching which lists nine different, but related,
approaches. I find myself interested in approaches leaning towards 'direct exposure',
'direct participation', 'authentic use', 'negotiating interaction' and 'L2 as the language of
classroom management' (CEF, 1996, p. 143), which is to some extent true for the
following models of L2 learning.
 

The  Interaction  Approach

The  main  idea  of  the  interaction  approach  is  staunchly  affirms  how  talking  to  others  is  the  
key   to   language   acquistion.   Language   is   acquired   through   interaction.   Jerome   Bruner   argues  
that  a  'structured  interaction'  is  critical  when  learning  a  language.  The  central  concept  of  the  
interaction  approach  is  the  'negotiation  of  meaning',  where  the  speakers  have  possibilities  to  
negotiate  through  either  "repetitions,  confirmations,  reformulations,  comprehension  checks,  
clarification   requests   etc"   (Long,   1996:   418   in   Cook,   2008,   p.   225).   Furthermore   explains  
Bruner   the   idea   of   'structured   interaction'   with   the   concept   of   'scaffolding',   which   is   the  
combination   of   negotiation   of   meaning   along   with   the   goal   shared   by   the   interlocutors   to  
extract  meaning  from  the  utterances  made.  

The  interaction  approach  contains  various  ways  to  create  the  'scaffolding'  and  to  negotiate  
meaning   which   includes   recasts,   clarifications,   repetitions   as   well   as   conversational  
interaction.       Although,  as  Cook  points  out,  all  of  these  types  of  feedback  does  also  "occur  in  
non-­‐classroom   conversation,   they   are   more   focused   on   the   language   mistake   than   the  
meaning,   and   doubtless   occur   with   a   much   higher   frequency   in   teaching   than   would   be  
acceptable   in   ordinary   conversation"   (Cook,   2008,   p.   226).   However,   the   interaction  

3
approach   can   work   if   the   group   of   students   and   the   language   teacher   has   established   a  
mutual  understanding  and  trust  in  order  to  make  negotiating  possible  and  futile,  especially  
in   regards   to   grammar   systems.   Some   students   might   choose   to   be   silent   where   such   a  
method  exists  due  to  fear  of  having  their  ignorance  exposed  in  public  (Cook,  2008,  p.  227).  
This   teaching   method   does   also   require   that   the   teacher   sets   up   tasks   which   involves  
negotiating   meaning,   and   both   teacher   and   peer   feedback   is   important   to   interaction,  
particularly  through  recasts  (Cook,  2008,  p.  228).  The  interaction  approach  does  also  open  
for   "metalinguistic   feedback   commenting   on   wellformedness"   and   a   general   discussion  
about  grammar  and  language  which  will  raise  the  students'  awareness  of  how  they  develop  
fluency   in   the   target   language,   and   this   is   in   line   with   what   the   CEF   states   as   'direct
exposure', 'direct participation', 'authentic use', 'negotiating interaction' and 'L2 as the
language of classroom management' (CEF, 1996, p. 143) which are crucial to language
acquisition.

Sociocultural  SLA  Theory

The  sociocultural  SLA  theory  advocates  a  method  which  leans  heavily  on  Vygotsky's  theory  
of   internalization,   i.e.   "the   process   through   which   the   child   turns   the   external   social   use   of  
language  into  internal  mental  use"  (Cook,  2008,  p.  228)  as  well  has  his  theory  of  ZPD,  zone  of  
proximal   development,   which   in   this   instance   refers   "to   the   gap   between   the   learner's  
current   stage   and   the   next   point   on   some   development   scale   the   learner   is   capable   of  
reaching"   (Cook,   2008,   p.   228).   Bruner,   psychologist   in   the   field   of   developmental  
psychology,   is   taken   into   account   when   presenting   the   theory   of   'scaffolding'   which   is   also  
predominant  in  the  sociocultural  SLA  theory.  Scaffolding  is  understood  as  "the  process  that  
assists   the   learner   in   getting   to   the   next   point   in   development,   in   sociocultural   theory  
consisting   of   social   assistance   by   other   people   rather   than   of   physical   resources   such   as  
dictionaries"   (Cook,   2008,   p.   228).   Exposing   language   learners   to   spoken   language   is   the  
main   objective   and   motivation   in   sociocultural   SLA   theory.   This   can   be   achieved   through  
what  Bruner  calls  LASS,  Language  Acquisition  Support  System,  and  IRF  (initiation,  response  
and   feedback)   (Cook,   2008,   p.   229)   which   in   turn   develops   into   what   Merrill   Swain   calls   a  
"collaborative   dialogue",   in   which   language   learners   are   involved   in   problem   solving   and  
negotiating  meaning  together  through  constructive  dialogue  (Cook,  2008,  p.  230).  Through  

4
structured   cooperative   tasks   language   learners   are   required   to   exchange   information,  
communicate  and  develop  the  educational  dialogue,  "in  which  people  create  new  knowledge,  
that   is,   learning"   (Cook,   2008,   p.   230)   or   cooperate   and   assist   each   other   in   realizing   and  
comprehending   knowledge   and   practice   newly   acquired   skills   along   with   reinforcing   and  
repeating   them.   "Language   learning   is   social   mediation   between   learner   and   someone   else  
during   which   social   acquired   knowledge   becomes   internal"   (Cook,   2008,   p.   230),   but   the  
method  requires  'scaffolding'  represented  and  orchestrated  by  an  expert  or  a  fellow  learner.  
Teaching   which   utilizes   sociocultural   theory   requires   structured   cooperative   tasks,   and  
additionally    a  strong  teacher  presence  to  monitor  dialogues  through  LASS  and  IRF.  

Models'  implications  for  language  teaching

Both   the   interaction   approach   and   the   sociocultural   SLA   theory   strongly   advocate   a  
conviction   where   exposure   is   a   central   idea,   and   teaching   based   upon   them   requires  
structured   task-­‐based   activities   which   foster   cooperation   and   collaboration   in   groups.  
Scaffolding   entails   strong   teacher   presence   in   lessons   when   task-­‐based   activities   are  
unfolding,  and  the  purpose  of  the  activities  should  take  into  account  two  objectives,  namely  
precision   at   applying   the   grammatical   system   taught,   and   automisation   of   the   system,   which  
also   can   be   referred   to,   respectively,   as   accuracy   and   fluency   (Thornbury,   1999,   p.   91).  
Thornbury  highlights  the  importance  of  the  following  when  discussing  the  former  including  
attention  to  form,  familiarity,  thinking  time  and  feedback.  Attention  to  form  is  important,  as  
it  elicits  the  aim  to  'getting  it  right',  and  here  stronger  fellow  learners  can  teach  weaker  ones,  
if   the   culture   of   'scaffolding'   is   embedded   in   the   language   classroom.   Practice   activities  
should   motivate   learners   to   be   accurate   (Thornbury,   1999,   p.   92).   Thornbury   writes   that  
"(f)luency  is  a  skill"  (Thornbury,  1999,  p.  93),  but  emphasizes  the  importance  for  learners  to  
automise  knowledge  cognitively,  only  then  fluency  can  develop  and  be  internalized  as  a  skill.  
Task-­‐based   activities   include   information   gap   tasks   which   will   force   language   learners   to  
practice   real   communication   in   a   collaborative   fashion,   and   they   will   be   motivated   by   a  
communicative   purpose,   i.e.   to   bridge   gaps.   Tasks   should   have   attention   to   meaning,  
authenticity  and  a  communicative  purpose  (Thornbury,  1999,  p.  93).  

5
Models  which  are  built  on  language  exposure  through  task-­‐based  collaborative  activities  like  
the   interaction   approach   and   the   sociocultural   SLA   theory   do   also   naturally   have   their  
pitfalls   and   dangers.   The   possibility   of   fossilization,   i.e.   language   and   grammar   systems   have  
been   wrongly   acquired,   reinforced   and   stalled,   can   be   a   result   of   a   lack   of   negative   feedback,  
or   error   correction   from   the   teacher.   "Hence   it   is   now   generally   accepted   that   a   focus   on  
form   (not   just   meaning)   is   necessary   in   order   to   guard   against   fossilisation   (Thornbury,  
1999,  p.  116).  The  prospect  of  having  students  expose  each  other  to  grammatical  errors  are  
very  much  a  danger  of  methods  where  exposure  is  central.  Nevertheless,  language  learners  
make  mistakes,  and  they  have  to  be  allowed  to,  but  they  also  have  the  right  to  be  corrected.  
In  the  case  of  task  performance  represented  by  the  discussed  theories  and  approaches  the  
CEF   stress   the   importance   of   taking   into   account   "both   the   learner's   competences   and   the  
conditions  and  constraints  specific  to  a  particular  task  (which  may  be  manipulated  in  order  
to   modify   the   level   of   difficulty   of   classroom   tasks),   and   the   strategic   interplay   of   learner  
competences  and  task  parameters  in  carrying  out  a  task  (CEF,  1996,  p.  158).  In  other  words,  
the   teacher's   role   should   not   be   underestimated   when   using   task   performance   when  
teaching   grammar   in   the   language   classroom,   on   the   contrary,   the   teacher's   presence   and  
guidance  is  essential.    

As a language teacher (and language learner) I base my choice of language teaching

methods on knowledge, experience and reflection as regards to the best practices,
although it is important to differentiate and accommodate for all the language students
and their appropriate level and their particular needs as pointed out by the CEF.
Subsequently, my further points of discussion will take into account individual
differentiation, but will be based upon general principles for the presented models for
language learning. CEF stresses that teachers "should realise that their actions, reflecting
their attitudes and abilities, are a most important part of the environment for language
learning/acquisition (CEF, 1996, p. 144), which means that the background, linguistic,
educational and pedagogical, plays an important role for the language teacher. Naturally
then, it is imperative as a modern language teacher to be constantly alert and aware of
one's attitudes and convictions as regards to teaching skills, classroom management
skills, ability to engage in action research and to reflect on experience, teaching styles,

6
understanding of and ability to handle testing, assessment and evaluation, knowledge of
and ability to teach sociocultural background information, inter-cultural attitudes and
skills, knowledge of and ability to develop students’ aesthetic appreciation of literature,
and as mentioned, to maintain an ability to deal with individualisation within classes
containing diverse learner types and abilities (CEF, 1996, p. 144).  

How then is the role of grammatical competence understood in the general approaches
chosen above? Cook questions the authenticity of the classroom and writes that teachers
"and books slip into the habit of referring to the world outside the classroom as the 'real
world'" (Cook, 2008, p. 155). How then, is it possible to achieve a direct exposure to
"authentic use of language in L2 in one or more ways" (CEF, 1996, p. 143)? Cook draws
attention to the fact that teacher talk make up for around 70 per cent of classroom
language, and that many teachers still think of the language classroom as language
practice above all else (Cook, 2008, p. 160). The distinction between non-authentic texts
and authentic texts highlights two justifications made by Cook which argues for more use
of the latter in order to maximize motivation and interest, as authentic texts serves a real
communicative purpose, and acquisition-promoting content, which provide a rich source
of natural language for the learner to acquire language, and grammar, from (Cook, 2008,
p. 159). Thornbury, on the other hand, highlights the importance of context in language
learning, and this needs to be taken into account when using language teaching methods
relying heavily on exposure and scaffolding. As Thornby writes "in the absence of context,
it is very difficult ot recover the intended meaning of a single word or phrase"
(Thornbury, 1999, p. 69). Examples of methods which will ensure contextualization can
be using scripted dialogues, authentic texts, student language analysis, dictogloss and
genre analysis (Thornbyry, 1999, p. 69-90). Grammar competence is present in all
examples, but is guaranteed by a strong teacher presence combined with a structured
dialogue with the students and language learners.

Another approach inspired by the sociocultural SLA theory is a combination of

presentations, explanations, (drill) exercises and exploitation activities, but with L2 as the
language of classroom management and explanation (CEF, 1996, p. 143) devise the main
foundation for language teaching. Thornbury discusses two approaches to achieve this

7
model for teaching in his two chapters "How to teach grammar from examples" and "How
to teach grammar through texts". There are two ways in which a learner can obtain
comprehension of a rule, and that is either the deductive (rule-driven) or the
inductive (rule-discovery). Methods such as the Direct Method and the Natural Approach
both lean towards the latter, and are strongly identified with methods of second language
instruction (Cook, 2008, p. 49). Furthermore, I am inclined to argue that such a
pronounced learning model for language learning enables the language learner to
discover rules and patterns, which then can constitute the further explanation by the
teacher. Thornbury quotes Pascal who wrote: "People are generally better persuaded by
the reasons which they themselves have discovered than by those which have come into
the minds of others" (Thornbury, 1999, p. 51). By structuring exercises which challenges
the students to find rules and patterns themselves, or utilizing the inductive approach,
has naturally both positive and negative aspects. Among the advantages I value learners
"fit their existing mental structures than rules" which enables them "to make the rules
more meaningful, memorable, and serviceable and then in turn ensures a "cognitive
depth", higher degree of student activity and helps the students to develop autonomy and
self-reliance. If, as in the case of project work, the teacher facilitates for collaborative
work in the target language learners will also practice the language in a more authentic
setting. The disadvantages though include mispent time and energy on working out rules
which might mislead and confuse students, wrong hypotheses might be too narrow or
broad to be applicable, lot of planning on the teacher's part, some language areas resist
easy rule formation and the method can be experienced as frustrating by students who
prefer to simply be told the rule (Thornbury, 1999, p. 54-55).
 
An   example   of   a   collaborative   task   could   be   utilizing   what   Thornbury   calls   realia,   which   is  
the   technical   term   for   any   real   objects   that   are   introduced   in   the   classroom   (Thornbury,  
1999,   p.   57).   By   introducing   the   class   to   a   "mystery   bag"   filled   with   objects   students   need   to  
deduce   the   characteristics   of   the   owner   based   upon   the   nature   of   the   objects,   and   hence   use  
various   grammatical   structures.   Wrapped   objects   can   serve   a   purpose   of   teaching   the  
language  of  perception:  "It  looks  like  a...;  it  feels  like  a  ...;  it  sounds  like  a  ...  etc"  (Thornbury,  
1999,   p.   59),   while   a   shopping   bag   with   groceries   can   be   used   to   teach   the   language   of  

8
quantities.  Such  a  method  might  create  a  more  authentic,  albeit  a  limited,  use  of  the  target  
language.   Adult   leaners   might   find   it   rudimentary   and   childish   (which   then   calls   for  
appropriate  planning  from  the  teacher),  but  at  lower  levels  it  might  stir  an  engaged  student  
group   who   develops   an   authentic   enthusiasm   to   solve   the   mystery.   Cook   distinguishes  
between   Marton's    (1988)   four   teaching   strategies   which   includes   receptive   strategy  
(listening),   communicative   strategy,   reconstructive   strategy   and   the   eclectic   strategy  
(combines   two   or   more   of   the   others),   while   Allen   (1990)   on   the   other   hand   distinguishes  
between   experiential   activities  and   analytic  activities   (Cook,   2008,   p.   235).   A   task-­‐based  
activity   like   the   aforementioned   activity   of   the   "mystery   bag"   would   most   likely   involve  
Merton's  communicative   strategy   or   Allen's   experiential   activity,   which   then   in   turn   would  
utilize   the   interaction   method   where   'scaffolding'   has   been   given   by   the   teacher   and   the  
'collaborative  dialogue'  occurs  among  the  students  solving  the  task  given.

Conclusion
In this essay I have discussed how grammatical competence is understood to develop
according to two different models of language learning, respectively interaction approach
and sociocultural SLA theory, as presented by Cook. I have used the Common European
Framework as a backdrop for my discussion on what methods would be most beneficial
to the language learners in terms of grammar competences, and although "a framework
of reference for language learning, teaching and assessment must also deal with
methodology, since its users will undoubtedly wish to reflect on and communicate their
methodological decisions within a general framework (CEF, 1996, p. 142)" I have also
tried to assess the methods discussed in a critical fashion.

The implications for using methods with a strong focus on exposure have been debated
and the need for a safe and respectful classroom culture along with a teacher which
accommodates for the variety of learners through differentiation it does not disqualify the
fact and the importance of grammar to be an integrated part of L2 language teaching and
learning, and through direct exposure combined with scaffolding such as scripted
dialogues students' collaborative dialogues will emerge and grammatical competence will

9
become an integrated part of every lesson where language learners will develop a
conscious attitude towards grammar in their language acquisition.

10
References

Common European Framework. Retrieved from

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Hodder
Education.

Thornbury. S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Edinburgh: Pearson Longman.

11