Teaching grammar as a liberating

force
Richard Cullen

The idea of grammar as a liberating force comes from a paper by Henry

Widdowson (1990) in which grammar is depicted as a resource which liberates the
language user from an over-dependency on lexis and context for the expression of
meaning. In this paper, I consider the implications for second language teaching of
the notion of grammar as a liberating force, and identify three key design features
which, I propose, need to be present in any grammar production task in which this
notion is given prominence. These are: learner choice over which grammatical
structures to use; a process of grammaticization where the learners apply
grammar to lexis; and opportunities to make comparisons and notice gaps in their
use of grammar. I then discuss, with practical examples, types of grammar task
which exhibit these features. These tasks all derive from traditional E LT practice,
but have been revitalized to support an approach to teaching grammar which
emphasizes its liberating potential.

The liberating In an essay entitled Grammar, and nonsense, and learning, Widdowson
potential of grammar (1990: 86) wrote:
. . . grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force: it
frees us from a dependency on context and a purely lexical categorization
of reality.
Given that many learnersand teacherstend to view grammar as a set of
restrictions on what is allowed and disallowed in language usea linguistic
straitjacket in Larsen-Freemans words (2002: 103)the conception of
grammar as something that liberates rather than represses is one that is
worth investigating further. In this paper, I first explore the implications of
this statement for our understanding of the nature of grammar and the role
it plays in communication, and then go on to discuss how this
understanding might inform approaches to teaching grammar in second
language classrooms.
Widdowsons conception of grammar as a liberating force may be a striking
image, but what he meant by it is not contentious. Without any grammar,
the learner is forced to rely exclusively on lexis and the immediate context,
combined with gestures, intonation and other prosodic and non-verbal
features, to communicate his/her intended meanings. For example, the
three lexical items dog eat meat could be strung together in that order to
communicate the intended message that the dog has eaten the meat (which

E LT Journal Volume 62/3 July 2008; doi:10.1093/elt/ccm042 221

The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication March 15, 2008
 we were going to cook for dinner), provided there is enough shared context
between the interlocutorsthe empty plate, the shared knowledge of the
dog, the meat and our plans for dinnerto allow the utterance to be
interpreted correctly. With insufficient contextual information, the
utterance is potentially ambiguous and could convey a range of alternative
meanings, such as:
1 The dog is eating the meat.
2 A dog must have eaten the meat.
3 Dogs eat meat.

It is grammar that allows us to make these finer distinctions in

meaningin the above examples, through the use of the article system,
number, tense, and aspect. It thereby frees us from a dependency on lexis
and contextual clues in the twin tasks of interpreting and expressing
meanings, and generally enables us to communicate with a degree of
precision not available to the learner with only a minimal command of the
system. In this sense, grammar is a liberating force.

Notional and The above examples illustrate how grammar is used to indicate differences
attitudinal meanings in notional meaning (Batstone 1995)that is differences in semantic
in grammar categories, such as time, duration, frequency, definiteness, etc. The
liberating power which grammar gives usto transcend the limitations of
lexis and context in the communication of meaningis also deployed in
expressing attitudinal meanings, such as approval, disapproval, politeness,
abruptness, and social intimacy or distance, etc. (Batstone op. cit., Larsen-
Freeman op. cit.). The following example from Batstone (ibid.: 197)
illustrates how a writer might deliberately contrast two tenses to indicate
approval and disapproval towards the respective subjects of the verb:
Smith (1980) argued that Britain was no longer a country in which
freedom of speech was seriously maintained. Johnson (1983), though,
argues that Britain remains a citadel of individual liberty.
Commenting on this example, Batstone (ibid.: 198) suggests that the use of
the past tense
signals that Smiths argument is no longer worthy of current
interest . . . it is (in two significant senses) passe,
whereas the contrasting use of the present tense in the following sentence
shows that
Johnsons argument is held to be of real and continuing relevance.
The writer is here using grammar to signal something about his attitude
to the ideas he is discussing.
Central to the notion of grammar as a liberating force is the view of grammar
as a communicative resource on which speakers draw to express their
intended meanings at both levelsthe notional and the attitudinal. As such
the use of a particular grammatical structure is a matter of speaker choice.
As language users, we may wish to be very clear about what we want to say,
or deliberately ambiguous, or non-committal. We may wish to sound polite,
distant, direct, or even rude. We may wish to convey formality or informality

222 Richard Cullen

 according to the context in which we are operating. To do all these things,
speakers use the linguistic resources which the grammar of the language
makes available to them: grammar is thus at the service of the language
user, and the teaching of grammarespecially if we wish to present
grammar to our learners as something which is liberating and
empoweringshould aim to reflect this.

Focus on form and The kind of liberating force attributed to grammar so far lies in its intrinsic
output tasks natureas a resource to enhance power and precision in the
communication of meaning. However, there is another sense in which
grammar might be termed a liberating force, and that is in its potential as
a focus of second language instruction to drive forward learning processes
and so help to liberate the learner from the shackles of the intermediate
plateau. There is a considerable body of evidence in second language
acquisition research (see, for example, Long 2001; Ellis 2005) to suggest
that a focus on formthat is, a focus on specific grammatical forms as they
arise in contexts of language useis an essential ingredient to raise the
ultimate level of attainment (Long op. cit.: 184). In particular, second
language researchers such as Swain (1995) and Skehan (2002) have
argued strongly that output tasks which are both system-stretching, in
that they push the learners to use their full grammatical resources, and
awareness-raising, in the sense that they allow learners to become aware
of gaps in their current state of interlanguage development, are crucial
elements in a pedagogy designed to provide the required focus on form.
One of the practical implications of the notion of teaching grammar as
a liberating force, therefore, would be in the design of production tasks
which challenge learners grammatically, and also lead them to notice gaps
in their knowledge of the target language system.

Three design features From the foregoing discussion, I propose that an approach to teaching
in teaching grammar grammar as a liberating force should include the following three
as a liberating force elements:

1 Learner choice
Given that the deployment of grammar in communication invariably
involves the speaker or writer in making a free and conscious choice
(notwithstanding the fact that having chosen a particular grammatical
structure there are conventions to observe regarding its acceptable
formation), the first element is that the learner must have a degree of
choice over the grammatical structures they use, and deploy them as
effectively as they can to match specific contexts and meet specific
communicative goals. In this respect, an emphasis on grammar as
a liberating force would favour a process rather than a product approach
to teaching grammar (Batstone 1994; Thornbury 2001), whereby learners
are not compelled to use a particular grammatical structure which has
been preselected for themit would be difficult to conceive of grammar
being genuinely a liberating force if they werebut rather they choose from
their stock of grammatical knowledge to express the meanings they wish
to convey.

Teaching grammar as a liberating force 223

 2 Lexis to grammar
If grammar liberates the language user by enabling him/her to transcend
the limitations of telegraphic speech (using lexical items alone), there
should be a progression from lexis to grammar both in the way language
and materials are presented to learners, and in the language we expect them
to produce. A grammar production task would typically require the learners
to apply grammar to samples of language in which the grammar has been
reduced or simplified, as typically found in notes of a meeting or
a newspaper headline, where the meaning content is conveyed primarily
through lexical items. Such tasks, where the learners are in effect asked to
map grammar on to lexis, involve a process known variously as
grammaticization (Batstone 1994) or grammaring (Thornbury 2001). By
engaging in this kind of activity, learners experience the process of using
their grammatical resources to develop the meaning potential contained in
the lexical items and express a range of meanings which the words alone
could not convey. Such a process is not dissimilar to the processes involved
in first language acquisition whereby the child moves from communication
through telegraphic utterances involving strings of lexical items to the
gradual deployment of morphemes and function words. It is not, however,
a process promoted in traditional approaches to grammar teaching such as
the presentationpracticeproduction format, where the learners are
typically asked to move in the opposite directionthey begin with
a preselected grammatical structure, and then have to slot lexis into it.

3 Comparing texts and noticing gaps

The third element in teaching grammar as a liberating force derives from
well-established principles of task-based pedagogy (for example, Willis
1996; Skehan op. cit.) and relates to the importance of allowing the learners
to focus on grammatical forms which arise from their communicative
needs, and in particular as a result of noticing gaps in their own use of
grammar. These gaps are noticed through a process of comparing their
output on a language production task with that of other learners or more
proficient users, for example, a sample text, or a written transcript of native
speakers doing the same task (Willis op. cit.). The focus on grammar is thus
reactive rather than proactive (Doughty and Williams 1998), because it
arises from the specific communicative needs which the learners discover in
the processes of doing the task, reviewing their performance and comparing
it with others. In this way learners experience the liberating potential of
grammar, not just to help them express their meanings in a particular
activity with greater precision, but over time, through a sustained
programme of comparing and noticing gaps and differences, to enable
them to develop their proficiency and sensitivity in the target language to
increasingly more advanced levels.

Task types for Four task types which exemplify these different elements are discussed
teaching grammar as below. At the outset, I should point out that I do not claim any originality
a liberating force for them, since they all involve classroom activities which have been in use
for many years, particularly as exercises to develop writing skills. Indeed
some, I would suggest, have partially fallen into disuse. What I am aiming
to do here is to show how fairly standard techniques, which have stood the

224 Richard Cullen

 test of time, can be revitalized and adapted to support a more contemporary
approach to teaching grammar.

Task type 1: Grammaticization tasks

In these tasks, the learners use their grammatical resources to develop and
expand information presented in the form of notes in which grammatical
features are reduced or even omitted altogether. The example in Figure 1
shows a grammaticization task using newspaper headlines, based on an
idea in Thornbury 2001. The three elements are clearly present in this type
of task: first, the learners have a free choice over which grammatical features
to use to expand the headlines, either individually or in consultation with
others; second, they start with lexis and add grammar to it, as well as any
additional lexis that may be required to develop and elaborate the story; and
third, after doing this, they compare their texts with one another and with
the original paragraph in the newspaper, and in this way naturally focus on
and discuss some of the differences between their use of grammar and that
of the original text, as well as differences in content. They can also be asked
to look for any patterns in the way grammar is used in the opening
paragraphs in all four stories, for example in the use of the present perfect
tense, relative clauses, clauses in apposition, and the use of the passive.

figure 1
Grammaticization task
using newspaper
headlines. (Headlines 1,
3, and 4 from The Times,
London, 31 August 2007;
headline 2 from the
Ashford Express, Kent
Messenger Group, 16
August 2007.)

Other grammaticization tasks, suitable for higher-level studentsacademic

writing classes, for examplecould include the use of bullet points taken
from PowerPoint presentations prepared by the students themselves. These
would be used to cue the writing of short paragraphs and summaries,
thereby giving practice in essay writing skills.

Task type 2: Synthesis tasks

Synthesis tasks (Graver 1986) are variations on grammaticization tasks and
take the form of exercises which start with a short text, consisting of a string
of short, non-complex sentences which the learners are required to combine
in some way so as to reduce the number of sentences and create a more
natural piece of text. The technique is a traditional sentence combination
task done at text rather than sentence level, and requires the use of various
grammatical devices needed for the construction of complex sentences,
such as relative clauses, purpose clauses and subordination, as well as
cohesive devices such as linking words. An example is given in Figure 2.

Teaching grammar as a liberating force 225

 Again it will be seen that the task combines the three elements noted above:
the learners have choice over the grammatical devices they think are needed
to reconstruct the text in the most effective way, drawing on their own
knowledge of the language. They compare their versions with one another
and with the teachers own version and so have the opportunity to expand
their own knowledge. Finally, although the task may not, strictly speaking,
move from lexis to grammar, it certainly moves from a text where the
grammar has been artificially reduced or simplified to one in which it is
more elaborated. The task also develops sensitivity to writing style and what
makes a coherent, fluent narrative.

figure 2
Synthesis task (adapted
from an idea in Graver
1986)
Task types 3 and 4: dictogloss and picture composition
These two task types are variations on the same procedure, in that they
require the students to reconstruct an original text by supplying more
grammar to it, and then comparing their new versions with those of
others. In dictogloss, or grammar dictation (Wajnryb 1990), learners
have to listen to and take notes on a short text read aloud to them, before
trying to reconstruct the text from their notes. Dictogloss clearly meets
all three criteria for designing tasks which emphasize the liberating
nature of grammar. The students move from lexis to grammar as they
strive to grammaticize the notes they made while listening to the text;
they choose from their own grammatical resources while reconstructing
the text; and finally they compare their versions with one another in order
to improve and refine them (Thornbury 1997), before comparing them
with the original version. A particular advantage of dictogloss is that the
texts selected (or specially written, as in Wajnrybs 1990 book) can be of
any typedescriptive, narrative, argumentative, etc.depending on
the aims of the lesson and needs of the learners. The example in the
Appendix is a paragraph from a Wikipedia entry about the Hubble
Telescope, which, if used with an upper-intermediate level academic

226 Richard Cullen

 writing class, perhaps as part of a unit on space exploration, could lead to
a focus on various grammatical features such as the use of the present
perfect tense in descriptive texts of this kind, structures used with
superlative forms of adjectives, and word suffixes (astronomy, astronomer,
astronomical).
Picture composition is another traditional technique used in teaching
writing which lends itself to this approach to teaching grammar. In order
to provide for the lexis to grammar dimension, the sequence of pictures
used would need to be accompanied by key words (provided either by the
teacher or negotiated with the whole class). In addition, some language
can be built into the picture sequence itself, as is typically found in
a cartoon strip. The procedure shown in Figure 3 begins by following
a fairly traditional sequence (Steps 1 to 3) based on a similar task found
in Ur 1988 (see the example in the Appendix), but adopts a more
structured procedure for focusing on form at Steps 4 to 7, one which is
more consistent with the task-based cycle of teaching described by Willis
(op. cit.). I have made the element of comparing texts deliberately less direct
in this task, in order to avoid giving the students the impression that the
stories which they composed in Step 1 and edited in Step 4 are less worthy or
interesting than the other groups stories or the teachers version,
presented at Step 6. The teachers version in fact is only a composite of the
individual group versions (and it is important that it is presented as such)
and is available as a source for comparison at the end of the process when the
students correct any errors in their own texts.

figure 3
A procedure for a picture
composition task

Teaching grammar as a liberating force 227

Conclusion In this paper I have identified three elements which I see as being central to
an approach to teaching grammar which emphasizes its role as a liberating
force (as defined in Widdowsons essay), and have gone on to show how
these elements can be incorporated into the design of grammar production
activities in the E F L classroom. As has been pointed out, the approach
which these activities exemplify is task-based in design, in that the focus on
form comes after a freer activity in which the learners use whatever
language resources they can muster: the teaching progression is thus from
fluency to accuracy rather than vice versa. The activities also follow a process
approach to teaching grammar, in which grammatical items are not selected
and presented in advance for learners to use, but rather grammar is treated
as a resource which language users exploit as they navigate their way
through discourse (Batstone 1994: 224). Gaps in their knowledge are
noticed later through the process of matching and comparing so that work
can begin on trying to fill them.
There are two further observations about the task types presented here
which need to be made. Firstly, given the scope of this paper, I have looked
only at types of task which require learners to produce language and have
not discussed receptive grammar tasks designed to raise awareness of the
various notional and attitudinal meanings which can be expressed by
grammar. Such tasks would involve considering the effects created by
changing some of the grammatical features used in a text, or asking learners
to make grammatical choices in a given text, for example, between active
and passive verb forms, and then comparing their choices with the original
text. Such awareness raising activities would also have an important role in
teaching grammar as a liberating force since they emphasize the notion of
learner choice in the use of grammar. Secondly, all the task types presented
have involved the learners in the creation of written texts, and are derived
from fairly standard guided writing tasks. This emphasis on writing is
deliberate: writing is generally done with more care and attention to
grammatical accuracy than speaking, while having a written text to study
and compare with another written text makes it easier to focus on form and
to notice and record features of grammar which might otherwise be
overlooked.
Finally, although I have argued in this paper that a process-oriented
approach to teaching grammar is more consistent with the notion of
grammar as a liberating force than a product-oriented approach, I am not
claiming that such an approach is inherently superior, and preferable at all
times and for all levels of student. There are many circumstances where it
may be necessary and desirable to pre-select language items for attention
prior to setting learners loose on a task, particularly for lower-level students,
and as a general policy a balanced combination of the two approaches is
likely to be the most effective teaching strategy to adopt. However, if we are
serious about emphasizing the notion of grammar as a liberating force in
our teaching, we need at least to provide opportunities for our learners to
experience its liberating potential through the kind of process-oriented
grammar tasks described here.
Final revised version received October 2007

228 Richard Cullen

References Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in
Batstone, R. 1994. Product and process: grammar second language learning in G. Cook and
in the second language classroom in M. Bygate, B. Seidlhofer (eds.). Principle and Practice in
A. Tonkyn, and E. Williams (eds.). Grammar and the Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Second Language Teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Thornbury, S. 1997. Reformulation and
Prentice Hall International. reconstruction: tasks that promote noticing. E LT
Batstone, R. 1995. Grammar in discourse: attitude Journal 51/4: 32635.
and deniability in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.). Thornbury, S. 2001. Uncovering Grammar. Oxford:
Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Heinemann Macmillan.
Oxford University Press. Ur, P. 1988. Grammar Practice Activities. Cambridge:
Doughty, C. and J. Williams. 1998. Pedagogic Cambridge University Press.
choices in focus on form in C. Doughty and Wajnryb, R. 1990. Grammar Dictation. Oxford:
J. Williams (eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Oxford University Press.
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Widdowson, H. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching.
University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2005. Principles of instructed second Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning.
language learning. System 33/2: 20924. London: Longman.
Graver, B. 1986. Advanced English Practice (third
edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. The author
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2002. The Grammar of choice Richard Cullen is Head of the Department of English
in E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (eds.). New Perspectives on and Language Studies at Canterbury Christ Church
Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. University, UK. His research interests include
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbawm Associates. classroom discourse, teacher and trainer
Long, M. 2001. Focus on form: a design feature development, and the teaching and learning of
in language teaching methodology in C. Candlin grammar, with a particular interest in spoken
and N. Mercer (eds.). English Language Teaching in its grammar. He has worked for the British Council on
Social Context. London: Routledge. teacher education projects in Egypt, Bangladesh, and
Skehan, P. 2002. Task-based instruction: theory, Tanzania, and has also taught and trained teachers in
research and practice in A. Pulverness (ed.). IATEF L Nepal and Greece.
2002: York Conference Selections. Whitstable: I AT E F L. Email: [email protected]
.

Appendix Students are given the first sentence of the text. They have to recover the
1 Dictogloss text rest by taking notes as it is read aloud to them (twice) and then
reconstructing the text from their notes.
The Hubble Space Telescope is a telescope in orbit around the Earth. It is
named after astronomer Edwin Hubble, famous for his discovery of galaxies
outside the Milky Way and his creation of Hubbles Law, which calculates
the rate at which the universe is expanding. The telescopes position outside
the Earths atmosphere allows it to take sharp optical images of very faint
objects, and since its launch in 1990, it has become one of the most
important instruments in the history of astronomy. It has been responsible
for many ground-breaking observations and has helped astronomers
achieve a better understanding of many fundamental problems in
astrophysics. Hubbles Ultra Deep Field is the deepest (most sensitive)
astronomical optical image ever taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

Teaching grammar as a liberating force 229

2 Picture (The sequence of pictures is taken from Ur 1988: 218)
composition
material

230 Richard Cullen

Copyright of ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal is the property of Oxford University Press / UK
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.