Hong Kong journal ofApplied Linguistics Volume], 1996

An Organic Approach to the Teaching of Grammar

David Nunan,
The English Centre
University of Hong Kong

Abstract

Despite the advances that have been made in discourse analysis and
the development of functional grammars, a decontextualised view
of grammar persists in the popular imagination, in many textbooks,
and in a great deal of pedagogical practice. The purpose of this
paper is to examine the relationship between grammar and
discourse, and to explore the implications of this relationship for
language education. In the paper, I shall argue that the linear
approach to language acquisition, which has dominated pedagogy,
is problematic, and does not reflect what is currently known about
processes of acquisition . In place of the linear view, I shall argue for
an `organic' approach, and shall suggest that such an approach is
more consistent with what we know about second language
acquisition than the linear approach . In the second part of the
paper, I shall explore the pedagogical implications of this
alternative approach .

Approaches to the Teaching of Grammar

The linear approach

The linear approach to language learning is based on the premise

that learners acquire one language item at a time, for example, that in
learning English they master the simple present, move on to the
present continuous, progress to the simple past, and so on. In this
sense, learning another language is like constructing a wall . The
language wall is erected one linguistic `brick' at a time. The easy
grammatical bricks are laid at the bottom of the wall, and they provide
a foundation for the more difficult ones . The task for the learner is to
get the linguistic bricks in the right order : first the word bricks, and
then the sentence bricks . If the bricks are not in the correct order the
wall will collapse under its own ungrammaticality .

65
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar

There are some serious problems with this linear view. In the first
place, the notions of `grammar' and `grammaticality' underpinning
the view are taken as unproblematic. Secondly, the view is not
supported by research into second language acquisition.

From a linear perspective, mastery of a language is essentially

about getting the bits in the right order at the level of the sentence.
The task for the second language learner is to learn how to get the
`bricks' in the same order as a native speaker. While this normative
view of grammaticality has been questioned by numerous linguists, it
seems to have been accepted by language teachers, curriculum
developers and textbook writers . That the notion is problematic can
be demonstrated by some simple introspective tests of grammaticality .
Consider the following, which have been taken from a variety of
sources, including (Langunoff 1992, cited in Celce-Murcia and
Olshtain; Odlin, 1994; Nunan, 1993 .

The gang were plotting a take-over .

Everybody is ready now, aren't they?
Neither Fred nor Harry had to work late, did they?
Someone has deliberately made themselves homeless.
Anyone running a business should involve their spouse .
My hair needs washed.
What the cat did was ate the rat.

In a grammaticality judgement test, all but the last two of these

were found to be acceptable by a group of native speakers despite the
fact that they violate linguistic `facts' relating to subject-verb and
pronoun agreement . Most native speakers seem to find them
unexceptional despite the violations . The penultimate sentence was
deemed acceptable by some speakers of American and Scottish English
despite violating the linguistic `fact' that in verbal constructions of this
kind, `need' must be followed by the `-ing' form of the verb . The last
was considered acceptable when heard, although around half of the
sample identified the rule `violation' when they saw it written down.

Given this uncertainty among native speakers, the appropriate

course of action might seem to be to turn to the experts for guidance.
Linguists and language educators spend their professional lives sorting
66
Hong Kong Journal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996

out and attempting to transmit `linguistic facts', and it would therefore

seem reasonable for them to adjudicate on questions of grammar and
grammaticality. However, when it comes to judgements of
grammaticality, even linguists would appear to be in dispute. In a
study carried out by Ross (1979) there was considerable disagreement
amongst linguists as to the grammaticality of the following question:

What will the grandfather clock stand between the bed and?

Among nine native English speaking linguists, two found the

question completely acceptable, two found it marginally acceptable,
and five found it to be completely unacceptable .

A similar picture emerges when the views of language educators

are sought . Schmidt and McCreary (1977) presented ESL teachers with
pairs of sentences such as the following :
There's about five minutes left .
1 . There are about five minutes left.
2. In a test of spontaneous usage, a large majority of the subjects used
(a) . However, in a later test, when asked which form they used,
most reported using (b) . In a subsequent test, the informants were
asked to judge the correctness of the probes . Only a small
minority considered (a) to be correct. One wonders what students
might think, hearing their teachers using forms which they have
been told are incorrect.

Odlin (1994), in an investigation of grammaticality and acceptability,

concluded that there are important limitations on the ability of
`experts' to provide reliable judgements.

Few, if any, linguists or teachers have irrefutable intuitions

about grammaticality, even though many of their
judgements are reliable. Both competence and performance
limitations affect expert judgements of grammaticality, and
these limitations can likewise affect judgements of
acceptability . In linguistics, there is a growing awareness of
such limitations, even if some grammarians continue to
dodge the epistemological question What is a linguistic fact?
posed by Labov (1975) . (Odlin 1994: 284)-

67
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching of Gramma r

These examples serve to underline the fact that it makes little sense to
talk about linguistic facts at the level of the isolated sentence because,
with few exceptions, these will be conditioned by the linguistic and
experiential context in which they occur. I therefore take issue with
those (see, for example Gregg (1989) who argue for the independence
of grammar, and would, myself, argue for a reversal of the order of
priority, that is, for the primacy of discourse in language. Here, I take
discourse to be any naturally occurring stretch of language occurring
in context (Carter, 1993 : 22) . Without reference to context, it makes
little sense to speak of `facts', `correctness', or `propriety' .

The linear view is also betrayed by what we currently know about

language acquisition . It is simply not the case that language learners
acquire one target item, perfectly, one at a time. Kellerman (1983), for
example, notes the `u-shaped behavior' of certain linguistic items in
learners' interlanguage development . If we test a learner's ability to use
a particular grammatical form (for example, the simple present) several
times over a period of time, we will find their accuracy rates varying .
The accuracy will not increase in a liner fashion, from 20% to 40%
through to 100%, but will at times actually decrease . (Rutherford,
1987) .

How can we explain this phenomenon? It can be explained with

reference to the `organic' metaphor . Rather than being isolated
`bricks', the various elements of language interact with, and are
affected by other elements to which they are closely related in a
functional sense . A learner's accuracy in using the simple present will
deteriorate (temporarily) at the point when he or she is beginning to
acquire the present continuous .

An `organic' view of language development

I believe that the adoption of an `organic' perspective is central to

our understanding of language acquisition and use, and that without
such a perspective, our understanding of other dimensions of language
such as the notion of 'grammaticality' will be piecemeal and
incomplete, as will any attempt at understanding and interpreting
utterances in isolation from the contexts in which they occur . The
organic metaphor would see second language acquisition more like
68
Hong KongJournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, i 996

growing a garden than building a wall. From om such a perspective,

learners do not learn one thing perfectly one at a time, but learn
numerous things simultaneously (and imperfectly) . The linguistic
flowers will not all appear at the same time, nor will they all grow at
the same rate. Some will even appear to wilt, for a time, before
renewing their growth. The rate and speed will be determined by a
complex interplay of factors related to speech processing constraints
(Pienemann and Johnston 1987) ; pedagogical factors (Pica 1985) ;
acquisitional processes Johnston, 1987) ; and the influence of the
discoursal environment in which the item occurs (McCarthy, 1991 ;
Nunan, 1993) .

Johnston (1987), who has one of the largest computerised SLA data-
bases ever compiled, provides an eloquent case for an organic view. (It
is interesting to note his use of the word `seedbed' in his description of
the acquisition of negation.)

. . . the case of `don(`t)' shows that formulaic language can

serve as what we might call the seedbed of propositional
language. While it may still be necessary to use terms like
formula in some kinds of linguistic discussion, the way in
which a chunk like `don't' is reanalysed by application of
the rules for its production in a widening range of verbal
environments makes it clear that the progression from
formulaic language to productive language involves no hard
and fast distinctions . Johnston 1987: 24)

As Johnston, and others, have shown, it is particularly important to

establish the correct pedagogical relationship between grammatical
items and the discoursal contexts in which they occur. Grammar and
discourse are tied together in a fundamentally hierarchical relationship
with lower-order grammatical choices being driven by higher-order
discoursal ones. This view has major implications for applied linguistic
research as well as language pedagogy. From this perspective, `getting it
right' is not an unproblematic issue of sorting out linguistic facts. If we
are to `get it right', we need to recognise that effective communication
involves achieving harmony between functional interpretation and
formal appropriacy .

69
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar

The problematicity of separating sentence level and discourse

level analysis is not new. As far back as 1952, Harris pointed out that
grammar and discourse are systematically related, although his claim
that grammar provides the building blocks for creating discourse
(Harris 1952) would seem to accord primacy to grammar. More
recently, McCarthy (1991 : 62) has argued that " . . .grammar is seen to
have a direct role in welding clauses, turns and sentences into discourse

The notion that grammar can be taught from a sentence-level,

context-free approach has also been attacked from various quarters in
recent years. Not surprisingly, this attack has come from those who
view language as a tool for the creation of meaning . Advocates of
context-sensitive analyses include specialists in pragmatics such as
Levinson (1983) who argues that there are very few context-free rules,
and who points out that the vast majority of rule-governed choices
that a language user makes are context dependent . Language educators
such as Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (forthcoming) also maintain that
there are very few grammatical elements that are not sensitive to, and
affected by, the discoursal contexts in which they occur. Celce-Murcia
and Olshtain argue that the following represents a fairly
comprehensive list of those grammatical features that are completely
context-free. (They also point out that even sentence level rule
'violations' can be explained with reference to context .)

subject-verb agreement
determiner - noun agreement
use of gerunds after prepositions
reflexive pronominalization within the clause
some - any suppletion in the environment of negation.

These examples point to the essential problematicity and complexity

of grammatical 'rules' once actual use is taken into account . I believe
that the implications of all this for pedagogy are fairly significant, and
shall spell these out in the concluding section of the paper.

The primacy of discourse is evident in the many elements within a

sentence that can only be interpreted with reference to other elements
beyond the sentence. In the following extract, the underlined items are

70
Hong Kongjournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1596

uninterpretable if one relies exclusively on the immediate sentence

within which the elements occur .

A common criticism of the simple alternative-response type

item is that a pupil may be able to recognize a false
statement as incorrect but still not know what is correct.
For example , when pupils answer the following item as false,
it does not indicate that they know what negatively charged
particles of electricity are called. All it tells us is that they
know they are not called neutrons.
T / F Negatively charged particles of electricity are called
neutrons .
This is a rather crude measure of knowledge, because there is
an inestimable number of things that negatively charged
particles of electricity are not called . To overcome such
difficulties , some teachers prefer to have the pupils change
all false statements to true. When this is done, the part of the
statement it is permissible to change should be indicated.
Unless the key words to be changed are indicated in the
correction-type true-false item, pupils are liable to rewrite
the entire statement. In addition to the increase in scoring
difficulty, this frequently leads to true statements which
deviate considerably from the original intent of the item.
(Gronland 1981 : 165) .

The importance of context is also evident when considering the

ordering of elements within the clause. Speakers of English have
choices as to how they distribute information within the clause. In
other words, they can convey the identical information using a variety
of different sentence forms . Consider the following alternative ways of
expressing the proposition: "The research committee opposed the
funding cuts' .

The funding cuts were opposed by the research committee .

It was the research committee that opposed the funding cuts .
It was the funding cuts that the research committee opposed .
What the research committee did was oppose the funding cuts .
Opposed the funding cuts, the research committee did.
The research committee, it opposed the funding cuts .

71
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar

From a discourse perspective, these items are not in free variation . The
option that is actually selected by the speaker will depend on the
context in which the utterance occurs and the status of the
information within the discourse. One important consideration is
whether the information has already been introduced into the
discourse, or is assumed to be known to the reader or listener (that is,
whether it is `given' or `new') . It is important to bear in mind, when
considering the issue of given and new information in discourse that it
is the speaker/writer who decides on the status of the information . As
a rough rule of thumb, the new information in a sentence or utterance
in English generally comes last. In the statement "The research
committee opposed the funding cuts" the assumed knowledge is that
the research committee opposed something, and the new information
is that it was funding cuts that were opposed .

The close hierarchical relationship between discourse

considerations and grammatical structuring in relation to sentence
internal elements can be seen if we provide questions to which the
above statements might be appropriate responses .

Question: What did the research committee do?

Response: It opposed the funding cuts?

Question : What happened about the funding cuts?

Response : They were opposed by the research committee.

Question: Did the Deputy VC oppose the funding cuts?

Response: No, it was the research committee that opposed the cuts.

Question: Did the research committee oppose the additional grant

to the polytechnics?
Response: No, it was the funding cuts that were opposed by
theresearch committee.

It is worth noting in these contextualised utterances, the

replacement of full noun phrases by pronominal forms . This illustrates
the interaction between different discoursal phenomena in this
instance, the distribution of given-new information and the use of
cohesion to track various entities within the discourse .

72
Hong Kongjournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996

Pedagogical Implications

What are the practical implications of this `organic' approach to

language acquisition? I believe that they are far reaching, and that they
have particular pertinence within the context of current debates over
language standards in Hong Kong. In the first place, they illustrate the
naivete of calls for a return to the grammar teaching methods of the
past . When grammar is examined as it is actually acquired and used,
the full complexity of language begins to emerge. The discussion serves
to show that grammatical rules derived from sentence level analysis are
almost certain to overgeneralise, and to lead learners into error when
they attempt to deploy such rules in communication . The analysis also
reveals the futility of the 'building block' approach to pedagogy which
attempts to develop proficiency by teaching isolated sentence-level
structures for subsequent deployment in the construction of discourse.
There is enough evidence beginning to emerge from second language
acquisition research to suggest that the process should be reversed, that
we should teach from higher to lower level elements . Such research
shows that acquisition occurs through active engagement in discoursal
encounters, and that out of such encounters linguistic mastery at the
level of the sentence emerges. In other words, it is out of discourse
that grammar emerges, not vice versa.

A pedagogy exploiting this view would show learners how

grammar enables them to make meanings of increasingly sophisticated
kinds: how it enables them to escape from the tyranny of the here and
now (Halliday, 1985) . It would show them that without tenses and
time adverbials, they would be unable to refer to things that happened
last week or yesterday, that without conditionals, they would be
unable to speculate or hypothesize, and that without modals, their
ability to convey interpersonal meanings would be severely impaired.

Unfortunately, the sentence level, context-free view of grammar

underpinning many coursebooks teaches grammar as form, without
making clear the relationship between form and function . Learners are
taught about the forms rather than how to use the forms to
communicate meaning . For example, they are taught how to
transform sentences from the active voice into the passive, and back
into the active voice, without indicating the communicative ends for
73
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching of Grammar

which the passive voice in English is deployed : to enable the speaker

or writer to place the communicative focus on the action rather than
the performer of the action, to avoid referring to the performer of the
action, and so on. If the communicative value of alternative
grammatical forms is not made clear to learners, they come away from
the classroom with the impression that the alternative forms exist
largely to deny them entrance to the second language speaking club .

The assumption underlying most textbooks is that learning is a

linear process, that grammatical knowledge is built up in the learner in
much the same way as a building is constructed . Grammatical
competence is acquired one grammatical `brick' at a time. However, it
is clear from SLA research that the process does not work like this at
all (see, for example, Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991) . As indicated
earlier, learners do not learn one grammatical feature perfectly, one at
a time, rather, they learn numerous features imperfectly at the same
time. In addition, the development of their ability to use the language
is `unstable', and their accuracy rates will vary over time as one
grammatical form is destabilised by others. This instability, and the
interaction between closely related grammatical forms accounts for the
so-called `u-shaped' development of many forms identified by
Kellerman (1983) .

The reason why a great deal of grammatical instruction is

relatively unsuccessful is that such pedagogy divorces grammatical
form and communicative function. What is needed, is a pedagogy
which makes transparent the relationships between form and function .
It will then be easier for learners to appreciate the fact that alternative
forms (for example, active and passive voice, subordination and co-
ordination) do not exist simply to make things difficult for them, but
to enable them to express different kinds of meanings .

In terms of the data that learners work with, and from which they
will form working hypotheses about form and function, I believe that
learners should, even at low proficiency levels, be exposed to a rich
variety of authentic discourse, rather than the artificial models which
have been specially written to lay out grammatical paradigms . Such
artificial models misrepresent the nature of language as it actually
exists, and ultimately make the task for the learner more difficult by
removing the built-in redundancy that exists in authentic language. In
74
Hong Kong journal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996

fact, in second (and even some foreign) language situations, there is

value in encouraging learners to collect and analyse their own samples
of authentic discourse so that in effect they become their own
ethnographers of communication (Heath, 1992) .

From the foregoing, I would suggest that in teaching grammar we

should be guided by the following pedagogical principles:

1. Teach grammar as choice

2. Provide opportunities for learners to explore grammatical and
discoursal relationships in authentic data
3. Teach grammar in ways that make transparent form/function
relationships
4. Encourage learners to become active explorers of language
5. Encourage learners to explore relationships between grammar
and discourse

In the rest of this section, I shall illustrate some of the ways in which
the principles might be activated. It should be noted that the principles
themselves are not discrete, but overlap .

Teach grammar as choice

One of the reasons why it is difficult to give hard-and-fast

grammatical rules for learners to deploy is because, once grammar is
pressed into communicative service, the choice, in many instances, will
be determined by the meanings learners themselves wish to make.
Ultimately, the answer to the question "Which form should I use
here?" will be: "It depends on the message you wish to convey. For
example, if learners wish to give equal weight to two pieces of
information and an entity, or state of affairs, then they can present the
information in a single sentence using co-ordination. If the wish to
give one of these pieces of information greater weight, then they can
use subordination.

In order to dramatise for learners the fact that alternative

grammatical realisations exist in order to enable them to make
different kinds of meanings, and that ultimately it is up to them to

75
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar

decide exactly what they wish to convey, tasks such as the following
can be used.

EXAMPLE

" In groups of 3 - 4, study the following pairs of sentences and

decide whether there is any difference in meaning between the two
pairs of sentences. Are any of these sentences ungrammatical?

1. a. In his 1925 study, Nunan asserts that grammar and

discourse are closely linked.
b. In his 1925 study, Nunan asserted that grammar and
discourse are closely linked.
2. a. Mr. Patten, a former governor of Hong Kong was warmly
greeted in Beijing.
b. Mr. Patten, the former governor of Hong Kong was warmly
greeted in Beijing.
3. a. You'll be late tonight, won't you?
b. You'll be late tonight, will you?
4. a. For me, champagne says summer.
b. Champagne says summer, for me .
5. a. The team are playing in Nagoya, tonight .
b. The team is playing in Nagoya, tonight .
6. a. You should call your parents, tonight.
b. You could call your parents, tonight .
7. a. The passive voice should be avoided in academic writing.
b. Academic writers should use the passive voice.
8. a. I'm going to study for the exam tonight .
b. I'll study for the exam tonight.
9. a. Alice saw a white rabbit.
b. Alice saw the white rabbit .

76
Hong Konglournal ofApplied Linguistics Ilolumel, 1996

Provide opportunities for learners to explore grammatical and

discoursal relationships in authentic data

Authentic language shows learners how grammatical forms

operate in context to enable us to make communicative meanings.
Another advantage of using authentic data is that learners encounter
target language items (in this case, comparative adjectives and adverbs)
in the kinds of contexts that they naturally occur, rather than in
contexts that have been concocted by a textbook writer. Ultimately,
this will assist the learner because he/she will experience the language
item in interaction with other closely related grammatical and
discoursal elements. By distorting the contexts of use within
grammatical items occur, non-authentic language in some respects
actually makes the task for the language learner more difficult. The
disparity between contrived and authentic data can be seen in the
following extracts which, themselves, have been turned into a
classroom task.

EXAMPLE
Task 1 : Study the following extracts . One is a piece of genuine
conversation, the other is taken from a language teaching textbook.
Which is which? What differences can you see between the two
extracts? What language do you think the non-authentic conversation
is trying to teach? What grammar would you need in order to take
part in the authentic conversation?
A: Excuse me, please. Do you know where the nearest bank is?
B. Well, the City Bank isn't farfrom here. Do you know where the main
post office is?
A : No, not really. I'm just passing through.
B. Well, first go down this street to the traffic light.
A: OK.
B: Then turn left and go west on Sunset Boulevard for about two blocks .
The bank is on your right, just past the post office.
A: All right. Tbanks!
B: You're welcome.

77
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar

A : How do 1 get to Kensington Road?

B: Well you go down Fullarton Road ...
A : ... what, down Old Belair, and around ...?
B: Yeah. And then you go straight .. .
A : . . . past the hospital?
B. Yeah, keep going straight, past the racecourse to the roundabout.
You know the big roundabout?
A : Yeah.
B. And Kensington Road's off to the right.
A: What, off the roundabout?
B: Yeah.
A: Right.
(Nunan. 1993.)

Teach grammar in ways that make transparent form/function

relationships

This principle can be activated by creating pedagogical tasks in

which learners structure and restructure their own understanding of
form-function relationships through both inductive and deductive
tasks of various kinds . The following task sequence, adapted from Hall
and Shepheard (1991), illustrates how such an approach might be used
to make salient different temporal relationships.

EXAMPLE
" Working with another student, match the uses of the present
perfect with the following sentences by writing a letter in the
column.

A . indefinite future period B . indefinite past C. definite future period

D. recent action E . past-present period: unfinished

1. The rains have just brought PAST NOW FUTURE

hope to the starving of Africa. . . . . . . . . ..
X 1

2. Giant swarms of locusts have

been reported in Cape Verde.

78
Hong Konglournal ofApphed Linguistics Volumel, 1996

3. Experts who have been in

the FAO in Mali for years were ...... .. . .
amazed by the size of one swarm.

4. Other countries are waiting

until international meetings
have been held in two
months time.

5. Government cannot wait

until locust swarms have
eaten their crops.

Now draw timelines for sentences 2-5 similar to that for sentence

Complete the following questions.

1. a. The rains have just brought hope to the straving of Africa

b. The rains just brought hope to the starving but no solution .
Which adverbs can replace just in a and b?
2 . a. Great swarms of locusts have been reported in Cape Verde .
b . Great swarms of locusts were reported in Cape Verde.
To which sentence can the words two days ago be added?
3 . a. Experts who have been with the FAO for years were
amazed .
b . Experts who were with the FAO for years were amazed.
4 . a. Other countries are waiting until international meetings
have been held in two months time.
b. Other countries are waiting until international meetings are
held in two months time.
Are these countries waiting until the meetings are over or until
they begin in a), in b)?
5. a. Other countries are waiting until international meetings
have finished .
b . Other countries are waiting until international meetings
finish .
True/False: There is no objective difference between the two
events .
Which sentence emphasises the completion of the event?
(Adapted from Hall & Shepheard, (1991 .)

79
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar

Encourage learners to become active explorers of language

By exploiting this principle, teachers can encourage their students

to take greater responsibility for their own learning. Students can
bring samples of language into class, and they can work together to
formulate their own hypotheses about language structures and
functions. Classrooms where this principle has been activated will be
characterised by an inductive approach to learning in which learners
are given access to data, and are provided with structured
opportunities to work out rules, principles and so on for themselves .
The idea here is that information will be more deeply processed and
stored if learners are given an opportunity to work things out for
themselves, rather than simply being given the principle or rule. (For
excellent, practical examples, see Woods, 1995 .)

The following example is taken from a unit of work in which

learners have been involved in talking about actions in progress .
Having worked through a linked sequence of tasks, they are then
invited to see if they can come up with a `rule' for spelling progressive
forms.

EXAMPLE

GRAMMAR WORKOUT
Can you make a rule?
A. Look as these lists . Then write the rule for turning the `base'
form of the verb into the `-ing' form .

baseform -ingform

go going
have having
be being
live living
come coming
work working

80
Hong KongJournal ofApplied Linguistics volumel, 1996

RULE:

B . Are these rules true or false?

1. If the word ends in `o' or `k', just add `-ing' . But if it ends in
`e', drop the `e' and add `-ing' .
2. Say the word out loud. If you can't hear the last letter,
throw it away and add `-ing' .

[ Source ; Nunan. (forthcoming.)

Encourage learners to explore relationships between grammar and

discourse

The final principle activates in the classroom the notion that

grammar and discourse are inextricably interlinked . Classroom tasks
which exploit this principle will help learners to explore the
functioning of grammar in context, and help them to deploy their
developing grammatical competence in the creation of coherent
discourse.

EXAMPLE:
Paragraphs are the "building block" of written texts. When we write a
paragraph, we have to turn individual `bits' of information (or
`propositions') into coherent, continuous prose . We use the
grammatical resources of the language to do this . Consider the
following `propositions' .
" The nursing process is a systematic method.
" The nursing process is a rational method.
" The method involves planning nursing care.
" The method involves providing nursing care.

81
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar

These can be `packaged' into a single sentence by using grammatical

resources of various kinds.

"The nursing process is a systematic rational method of planning and

providing nursing care."

1. Using the above sentence as the first in a paragraph, produce a

coherent paragraph incorporating the following information:
" The goal of the nursing process is to identify a client's health
status .
" The goal of the nursing process is to identify a client's health care
problems.
" A client's health care problems may be actual or potential.
" The goal of the nursing process is to establish plans to meet a
client's health care needs .
" The goal of the nursing process is to deliver specific nursing
interventions.
" Nursing interventions are designed to meet a client's health care
needs.
" The nurse must collaborate with the client to carry out the
nursing process effectively .
" The nurse must collaborate with the client to individualise
approaches to each person's particular needs .
" The nurse must collaborate with other members of the health care
team to carry out the nursing process effectively.
" The nurse must collaborate with other members of the health care
team to individualise approaches to each person's particular needs .

2. Compare your text with another student. Make a note of

similarities and differences .

3. Now revise your text and compare it with the original [supplied
separately.]

Adapted from Nunan, (1996.

))

82
Hong Kongjournal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996

Conclusion

in this paper, I have made a case for developing an alternative to

the `building block' metaphor that has dominated language pedagogy
for many years . This metaphor is based on the assumption that
learning is a linear process and that grammatical knowledge is built up
in the learner in much the same way as a building is constructed, that
is, that grammatical competence is acquired one grammatical `brick' at
a time. However, it is now abundantly clear from SLA research that
language is not acquired like this at all. Learners do not learn one
grammatical feature perfectly, one at a time, rather, they learn
numerous features imperfectly at the same time. Acquisition is
characterised by backsliding and plateaux, as well as by progressions.
In other words, it is an inherently `unstable', organic process in which
the learners' appos-developing interlanguage progresses through
sequences of metamorphoses (Rutherford, 1987) .

In the second part of the paper, I argued that classrooms

underpinned by the functional, organic view of grammatical
development described in the body of the paper will be characterised
by the following features :
" learners will be exposed to authentic samples of language so that
the grammatical features in question will be experienced in a range
of different linguistic and experiential contexts
" it will not be assumed that once learners have been drilled in a
particular form they will have acquired it
" there will be opportunities for recycling of language forms, and
learners will be engaged in tasks designed to make transparent the
inextricable links between form and function
" learners will be given opportunities to develop their own
understandings of the grammatical principles of English by
progressively structuring and restructuring the language through
inductive learning experiences
" over time, learners will encounter target language items in an
increasingly diverse and complex range of linguistic and
experiential environments.

In applying this view of language to pedagogy, we need to

acknowledge that words and sentences alone are not sufficient to
enable us to communicate effectively with others. Particularly in inter-

83
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching of Grammar

cultural and multi-linguistic encounters there is also a need for

pragmatic goodwill, for without such goodwill there is a danger that
speakers will fail to make the communicative effort to understand the
functional intentions that lie behind individual words and utterances.
In the final analysis, it is in the interpretation of functional intention,
not in the interrogation of isolated linguistic elements, that genuine
communication lies. In the words of one linguist,

Language is surely as complex a phenomenon as humans

have ever wanted to understand, and so far we haven't even
come close . We have been retarded in this pursuit by what
seems to be a scholarly drive to contract, rather than to
expand, the field of vision. . . . As soon as one looks beyond
sentences one finds oneself forced to stop dealing with
artificial data concocted to suit one's purposes, and to look
instead at language in use. (Chafe 1990: 21)

In relation to language standards, when we look beyond sentences in

isolation to language in use, the critical question is not : "Have they got
their words in the right order?", but "Have they got the linguistic
resources to communicate effectively in the complex world beyond the
classroom, beyond the lecture theatre and beyond the tutorial room?"
Only then, might pedagogies emerge that acknowledge the fact that
language is surely as complex a phenomenon as humans have ever
wanted to understand.

References

Carter, R. (1993 .) Introducing Applied Linguistics. London: Penguin.

Celce-Murcia, M . and E. Olshtain . (forthcoming) Discourse as a

Framework for Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press .

Chafe, W. (1990 .) Looking ahead, Text, 10, 19 - 22.

Gronlund, N. (1981 .) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. New

York: Macmillan.

84
Hong Kong Journal ofApplied Linguistics Volumel, 1996

Hall N. & Shepheard J ., . (1991 .) The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book.

Longman.]

Halliday, M.A .K. (1985 .) An Introduction to Functional Grammar.

London: Arnold.

Harris, Z. (1952.) Discourse analysis, Language, 28, (4) . 474-494 .

Heath, S. B . (1992.) Literacy skills or literate skills? Considerations for

ESL / EFL learners . In D . Nunan (ed.) Collaborative Language
Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnston, M. (1987.) Understanding learner language. In D. Nunan

(ed.) Applying Second Language Acquisition Research. Adelaide :
NCRC .

Kellerman, E . (1983 .) If at first you do succeed . . . In S . Gass and C .

Madden (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition . Rowley,
Mass . : Newbury House.

Labov, W. (1975.) What is a linguistic fact? Lisse, The Netherlands :

Peter de Ridder.

Langunoff, R. (1992.) A description of they as a singular pronoun .

Unpublished MA thesis in TESL, UCLA, Department of TESL
and Applied Linguistics . Cited in Celce-Murcia and Olshtain
(forthcoming) .

Larsen-Freeman, D . and M. Long. (1991 .) An Introduction to Second

Language Acquisition Research. London : Longman .

Levinson, S. (1983 .) Pragmatics . Cambridge : Cambridge University

Press.

McCarthy . M. (1991 .) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers .

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Nunan, D. (1993 .) Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin.

85
 An Organic Approach to the Teaching ofGrammar

Nunan, D . (1995.) ATLAS Learning-Centered Communication .

Boston : Heinle & Heinle.

Nunan, D. (1996. forthcoming) High Five! Boston : Heinle & Heinle.

Nunan, D. (1996 .) Academic Writing for Nursing Students . The

English Centre, University of Hong Kong

Odlin, T. (1994 .) The introspective hierarchy: a comparison of the

intuitions of linguists, teachers, and learners . In T . Odlin (ed.)
Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.

Pica, T. (1985 .) The selective impact of classroom instruction on

second language acquisition . Applied Linguistics, 6, 3, 214 - 222 .

Pienemann, M. and M . Johnston . (1987.) Factors influencing the

development of language proficiency. In D . Nunan (Ed.) Applying
Second Language Acquisition Research. Adelaide : NCRC.

Ross, J. (1979.) Where's English? In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W.

Wang (Eds .) Individual Differences in Language Ability and
Language Behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Schmidt, R. and C. McCreary. (1977.) Standard and superstandard

English: recognition and use of prescriptive rules by native and
non-native speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 271-288 .

Rutherford, W, (1987.) Second Language Grammar. Teaching and

Learning. London : Longman.

Woods, E . (1995 .) Introducing Grammar. London : Penguin .

86