What's wrong with the 'words + grammar' approach to language learning and teaching?

Introduction

In England, for a few years since the publication of the TSC Review of MFL Pedagogy (Bauckham, 2016), teachers have been urged to consider language teaching in terms of a 'three pillars' model, namely phonics, vocabulary and grammar. Departments have been encouraged to design their curriculum founded on those three pillars - producing a sequenced syllabus where explicit attention is given to teaching sound-spelling correspondences (SSCs), words and grammatical rules. The idea is that these these provide understandable building blocks for students who may be floundering in a sea of ill-organised input. You know how the argument goes: give students the words and the glue to stick them together (grammar) and acquisition gradually occurs.

Of course, the reality is that most departments have been teaching in this traditional way for many years, even if we have moved to somewhat more communicative techniques compared with the the 1950s and 1960s. The particular focus on phonics is rather new. In the past we more often talked of pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. The stress on phonics in England no doubt has a lot to do with its prominence and apparent success in the teaching of first language reading. The bandwagon effect may be at work to some extent here.

Putting phonics to one side, I'd like to look at what is meant by a 'words + grammar' approach, why it has maintained its grip and what might be wrong with it.

What is meant by a 'words + grammar' approach to second language learning and teaching?

We've seen that the 'words + grammar' approach emphasises the acquisition of vocabulary (words) alongside a structured understanding of grammatical rules. The two essential components of language: lexical knowledge and syntactic structures, are pieced together, jigsaw like, and declarative knowledge of these explicitly taught aspects can become automatised with practice. By automatised, we mean that somehow practice makes perfect - just as we practise the scales on a musical instrument and by so doing become better players of music in general. It's a tempting analogy. But it's simplistic and largely wrong.

So, to reiterate, at its core, the approach assumes that language learning is most effective when learners develop a solid vocabulary base while simultaneously mastering the rules that govern sentence construction. Words serve as the building blocks of communication, while grammar provides the framework that organises these words into meaningful expressions. Together, they enable learners to comprehend, produce, and interact in a new language with accuracy and fluency.

Key features of the approach

1. Vocabulary acquisition: Students are taught a lexical repertoire, based mainly on the high-frequency words which are essential for comprehension and communication. Vocabulary is often taught through direct instruction (flashcards, lists, definitions, apps), contextual usage, and exposure to texts.

2. Grammar teaching: Grammar provides the structural foundation of language. This component of the approach involves teaching sentence patterns, verb conjugations, tenses, syntax, and other grammatical rules that shape how words function in a sentence. Typically, a rule is taught, examples are practised and at some point students try to put the rules into use in more spontaneous speech and writing.

Is there a theoretical basis for 'words + grammar'?

You can argue that it aligns with what are called cognitive and constructivist theories of language acquisition. Cognitive theories suggest that language learning involves both declarative knowledge (knowing the rules and meanings) and procedural knowledge (applying language in real-time use). Constructivism emphasises that learners actively build their understanding by engaging with language in meaningful ways, using both vocabulary and grammar to communicate effectively.

Advantages of the 'words + grammar' approach?

• Provides Structural Awareness: explicit grammar teaching helps students recognise and produce well-formed sentences, reducing errors.

• Clarity: as mentioned above, the approach satisfies a need to understand how the language works and to feel that words have been memorised. There is a reason that teachers and students sometimes like to work through vocabulary sets on apps. There is a feeling of 'knowledge acquired' (however inapplicable this knowledge may be - see below).

• Supports language transfer: a clear understanding of grammar rules may help learners transfer knowledge from their first language to their second language more efficiently. For example, in French, being able to equate the 'going to' idea from English with 'aller + infinitive' may be useful in acquiring that structure. As teachers we might say: "Think of  'je vais jouer' as 'I am going + to play'".

• Traditional learning: the approach sits well in a tradition of learning in other subjects. We learn information, then apply it to real situations, for example we learn the facts about geological features such as river formation, to then understand what we see as we observe a river. Or we learn the mechanics of how to swim, then turn that knowledge into skill. 

So what are the problems?

I'm going to pick out a few issues.

• This is not how we acquire first or second languages

While few scholars these days believe that second language acquisituion is the same as first, we nevertheless do possess similar language learning abilities to those we had as young children. We only have to observe immigrants who acquire a new language without much, if any, recourse to rule learning or learning lists of words. Explicit attention to rules most likely helps with accuracy, but, essentially, adults acquire new languages mainly through hearing and reading input and through communication. If you 'do things with words', as one scholar put it, you will acquire. (Incidentally, it seems that adults are very good at acquiring vocabulary, but find it harder to pronounce accurately and to acquire accurate use of grammar structures - I leave you to ask why this might be!)

Some will be tempted to argue that there is not enough time in classrooms to learn in this 'natural' way and that you need short-cuts. The response to this is that there are not really any short-cuts to acquisition. It takes time, input and interaction. Getting input at the right level helps a lot - you don't learn much by hearing/reading language you do not understand.

• Transfer

A major issue with 'words + grammar' is that it is really hard to transfer the knowledge acquired into real, spontaneous language use. Even scholars who accept that automatisation can happen (e.g. Robert Dekeyser) say that it is only likely to succeed to with higher aptiude, highly motivated adults). 

In the classroom, this manifests itself as follows: you learn a rule about verb formation, practise it successfully in controlled exercises such as gap-fills, but then you find that when students try to write or say something less controlled, they come seriously unstuck. They have failed to transfer their declarative, or partly proceduralised knowledge, into usable communicative acts. 

This is to do with what is called Transfer-Appropriate Processing. We reproduce knowledge much more successfully when we have to do so in the same way we acquired the knowledge. For example, a beginner class could memorise the alphabet to a tune, then reproduce it later. But if you asked them to just say the letters, rather than sing them, or to spell a word with those letters, they would hesitate a lot more.

Worth mentioning here is the issue of fluency. Stringing words together having learned them individually is hard. A far better solution is to keep providing words in phrases and sentences and get students to practise them in that way. This leads us to the next point.

• Words rarely exists in isolation

I'd like to refer you at this point to a blog post by Gianfranco Conti. He develops the argument very effectively. If you read the whole post - you really should - you'll see the case made for learning via connected language rather than isolated words.

If I could sum it up, I would say that there is far more communicative value and success to be had by using the limited time we have in class NOT by learning words or doing grammar exercises, but by using language presented in chunked form - multi-word units or sentences. It is a more efficient use of working memory, allows for more communication and gives more success. In addition, learning in this way more closely aligns with how we learn and use our first language(s) - we pick up language through chunks, stock phrases and ready-made sentences. We then extract the grammar from those. Some limited, explicit teaching of the rules helps.

• There is too much grammar

Scholars, notably the influential Bill Vanpatten, have often pointed out that there is just too much grammar to learn. It's impossible to work through all the grammar, practise it and hope to apply it communicatively. Even if you select a sub-section of the grammar, based on its perceived importance or relevance, there is still too much to cover.

Teachers know this. Most students have great difficulty putting into practise a range of grammatical structures. So you are left wondering: is all this grammar teaching time well spent? If, what's more, students find it boring, then it's clear that alternatives need to be sought.

Alternatives?

Halliday (1994) argues that language should be viewed as a continuum where lexis and grammar are inseparable, forming a "lexicogrammar" that learners acquire as whole chunks rather than as isolated words and rules. The focus should be on acquiring meaningful patterns rather than memorising vocabulary lists and separate grammar structures. Learning in chunks promotes fluency and is more motivational.

Gianfranco’s Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI), described in Smith and Conti (2023) and Conti and Smith (2019) challenges the 'words + grammar' by emphasising the importance of meaningful input and alongside automatisation. Repeated use of high-frequency, chunked language can give students the confidence to use a repertoire of useful language with success. The use of translation to ensure comprehension is a particular feature of EPI. EPI, in various forms, is in wide use in schools in England, Australia and elsewhere.

Other approaches, such as various forms of Communicative Language Teaching, Task-based Language Teaching (e.g. Henshaw and Hawkins, 2022) and so-called CI (Compehensible Input) approaches such as TPRS, also put the emphasis on actually USING language for a purpose ('doing things with words'), rather than describing it, focusing on word memorisation and the teaching of rules.

All of these approaches come closer to finding a suitable balance between the natural mechanisms of learning and language learning we possess, and the need for the sequencing and structure required in classrooms. The nature of content, strcuture and sequences will depend on the syllabus.

Learning words and practising grammar are not useless activities, but in language teaching it is often about what is 'optimal' - what is the best use of time. Seeing language learning in terms of pillars and building blocks has serious limitations.

References

Bauckham, I. (2016). The TSC Review of MFL Pedagogy. Available at: https://pure-research.york.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/54043904/MFL_Pedagogy_Review_Report_TSC_PUBLISHED_VERSION_Nov_2016_1_.pdf

Conti, G. and Smith, S.P. (2019). Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Language Learners How to Listen. Independently Published.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Henshaw, F. and Hawkins, M. (2022) Common Ground: Second Language Acquisition Theory Goes to the Classroom.  Hackett Publishing.

Smith, S.P. and Conti, G. (2023). The Language Teacher Toolkit (2nd ed.). Independently published.