1. Teaching grammar
Grammar is the system of language that governs the conventional arrangement
and relationships of words in a sentence (Brown, 2001). Cook (2008) adds to this
definition that grammar is a central part of language in which other parts such as
pronunciation and vocabulary revolve. Indeed, they connect to each other through
grammar. This system of language is probably the most controversial one which after
being considered the central aspect of the grammar translation method, it became a
nearly forbidden aspect in methods such as the direct method or natural approach since
the memorization of grammar rules had been highly criticized. Nowadays, in a
communicative language learning context, the question is no longer whether grammar
needs to be taught or not; the question now is how to teach grammar.
Cook (2008) differentiates four types of grammar; the first is prescriptive
grammar which is the rules found in schoolbooks and, as the name says, it prescribes
what people ought to do. Prescriptive grammar deals with the reasons why some
grammatical forms are “better” than others but just based on certain criteria instead of
grammar itself. This kind of grammar is at some point considered as obsolete since
language should be taught as it is not as an artificial form that nobody uses. However,
one area where prescriptive grammar still thrives is spelling and punctuation as
everybody believes that there is a single “correct” selling for every word. The second
type of grammar is the traditional grammar which concerns the parts of speech; this
means labelling the parts with names such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. and giving
rules that explain how they may or may not be combined. The third type is called
structural grammar which is based on the concept of phrase structure that show how
words go together in a sentence and some do not. The phrase structure is usually
presented in tree diagrams that show how words build up into phrases and phrases build
up into sentences describing how these elements fit together in an overall structure.
However, the fourth type is the one in which second language acquisition relies on; this
type is called grammatical competence which refers to the knowledge of language that
the speaker possesses in the mind. This competence is the cognitive state that contains
all those aspects of form and meaning, and their relation. According to Brown (2001)
grammatical competence plays an important role in the communicative competence,
without the grammatical competence our language would be chaotic.

2. Form which is the organizational components of language and systematic rules
of the structure might be considered the central aspect of the grammatical competence,
nevertheless, forms are literally meaningless without semantics (meaning) and
pragmatics (meaning depending on the context). However, a form-based instruction is
not an inconvenient option depending on learners’ age, proficiency level and
educational background. Brown (2001) suggests that the focus on form is more
important when the learners are literate adults at an advanced proficiency level. On the
contrary it is less important to focus on form when the learners are young children at
beginning levels as they do not possess the abstract intellectual capabilities that adults
do.
On another vein, there are two major perspectives related to learning grammar.
Nunan (1998) suggests that there is a linear approach which is based on the premise that
learners acquire one grammatical item at a time that must be learnt properly before
moving to the next item. Metaphorically speaking, learning grammar is like
constructing a wall in which every linguistic brick is put at a time. The easy bricks build
a foundation for the difficult ones consequently they build this wall in a correct a way in
order to avoid collapsing under its own ungrammaticality. Even though, the author does
not agree with this perspective, instead, there is an organic perspective which can enrich
the understanding of second language acquisition. It explains it better as accuracy does
not increase in a linear way but it decreases at times. Hence learners’ mastery of a
particular item can increase or decrease at different times. The organic perspective sees
grammar learning as growing a garden in which flowers do not grow at the same rate
likewise, learners do not learn an item perfectly in order to move on a next more
complex one but they learn numerous items simultaneously and imperfectly.
Due to the undeniable importance of learning grammar in communicative
language learning, Cook (2008) suggests that explicit grammar teaching has the purpose
of convey grammar rules learnt consciously into unconscious processes of
comprehension and production. Although this objective is not always achieved, some
learners that have learnt a language by studying traditional grammars have turned into
fluent and spontaneous speakers who declare that grammar rules are useful as they
sometimes visualize verbs paradigms to check what they are saying. This phenomenon
leads to an important concept related to second language acquisition which is language
awareness. Cook (2008) declares that language awareness is a goal for second language

3. teaching and it should be raised even before learning the second language wanted
because if students know what to expect in the new language, they are more receptive to
it. There is an exploratory approach recalled by Cook (2008) where students investigate
grammar in order to increase their awareness of language by coming up with
grammatical rules by themselves. This approach leads to an issue mentioned by Brown
(2001); this issue refers to the controversy related to the kind of instruction offered to
learners. On one hand it is the inductive approach in which learners practice various
language forms. Such language forms are practiced in order to leave learners discover or
induce rules and generalizations on their own. On the other hand, the deductive
approach refers to grammatical rules or generalizations provided by the teacher or a
textbook, in this approach the practice of such rules comes afterwards. Brown (2001)
suggests that in most of the contexts, an inductive approach is more appropriate
basically because it allows students to get a communicative feel related to the aspects of
language before being overwhelmed by the grammatical explanations and also because
it builds more intrinsic motivation by allowing students to discover rules rather than
being told them. However, there are some occasional moments when the deductive
approach is needed.
In any of these cases, teachers must be aware of how they approach to
grammatical explanation and terminology. Brown (2001) declares that unlike the strong
emphasis made on the grammar translation method, in communicative language
teaching, metalinguistic knowledge might be too complex for students who are already
extremely busy trying to learn the language itself especially if they are young learner; as
explained in previous paragraphs, adults can be benefit from occasional explanation yet,
it is strongly advisable that to keep grammar explanations brief, simple, supported by
clear examples and as far as possible from getting tied up over exceptions rules.
( esteparrafo ponlo donde sientas que queda mejor xd )
As many of students’ errors in speech and writing are grammatical. It is worth
analysing whether correcting students’ grammatical errors makes any difference or not.
Brown (2001) suggests that students’ self- correction encouragement is ideal but due to
the students’ dependence on the teacher for useful linguistic feedback. It is important for

4. them to take advantage of their knowledge in order to inject corrective feedback. This
correction must always be injected at an appropriate moment and in an appropriate way,
always taking into account each student’s personality.

5. References.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. New York, NY: Longman.
Cook, J. V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. London,
UK:Hodder Education.
Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ETL Journal, 52(2), 101-109.