Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index
Ways of teaching spoken grammar
Laylokhon KHABIBULLAEVA
Webster University
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received July 2024
Received in revised form
15 July 2024
Accepted 25 July 2024
Available online
15 August 2024
The purpose of this study was to investigate the main
features of spoken grammar and the effect of explicit and
implicit instructions on teaching spoken grammar features of
ellipses, heads, and fillers to Uzbek EFL learners. To this end,
20 female and male pre-intermediate learners of Ihumo School
in Tashkent were selected through convenience sampling. The
participants were randomly divided into two groups, receiving
explicit and implicit instructions. The results indicate that there
is a significant difference in choosing a suitable technique for
teaching spoken grammar features. These findings have
important pedagogical and theoretical implications.
2181-
1415/©
2024 in Science LLC.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol5-iss7/S-pp290-296
This is an open access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)
Keywords:
explicit instruction,
implicit instruction,
heads,
fillers,
ellipses,
cooperative learning,
competitive learning.
Og
‘
zaki nutq grammatikasini o
‘
rgatish usullari
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
aniq ko
‘
rsatma,
yashirin ko
‘
rsatma,
boshlar,
to
‘
ldiruvchilar,
ellipslar,
hamkorlikda o
‘
rganish,
raqobatbardosh o
‘
rganish.
Ushbu tadqiqotning maqsadi O‘zbek tilini o‘rganuvchilarga
ellips,
bosh
va
to‘ldiruvchining
og‘zaki
grammatik
xususiyatlarini o‘rgatishda og‘zaki nutq grammatikasining
asosiy xususiyatlarini hamda aniq va yashirin ko‘rsatmalarning
ta’sirini o‘rganishdan iborat edi. Shu maqsadda Toshkent
shahridagi Ihumo maktabining 20 nafar o‘rta maktabgacha
yoshdagi o‘quvchilari qulay tanlov orqali tanlab olindi.
Ishtirokchilar tasodifiy ravishda ikki guruhga bo
‘
linib, aniq va
yashirin ko
‘
rsatmalar oldilar. Natijalar og
‘
zaki grammatik
xususiyatlarni o
‘
rgatish uchun mos texnikani tanlashda sezilarli
farq borligini ko
‘
rsatadi. Bu topilmalar muhim pedagogik va
nazariy ahamiyatga ega.
1
Master’s graduate, Faculty of TESOL, Webster University in Tashkent, Uzbekistan
.
E-mail: layloxonsamijonova0610@gmail.com
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
07 (2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
291
Методы преподавания разговорной грамматики
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
явное обучение,
неявное обучение,
заголовки,
заполнители,
многоточия,
кооперативное обучение,
конкурентное обучение
.
Целью данного исследования было изучение основных
особенностей устной грамматики и влияния явных и
неявных инструкций на обучение узбекских студентов
английскому языку как иностранному (EFL), с акцентом на
такие особенности устной грамматики, как паузы, вводные
конструкции и слова
-
заполнители. Для достижения этой
цели была проведена удобная выборка, включающая
20 учеников начального и среднего уровней школы
«Ихумо»
в Ташкенте. Участники были случайным образом
разделены на две группы: одна получала явные
инструкции, другая –
неявные. Результаты исследования
показывают, что существует значительная разница в
эффективности методик обучения особенностям устной
грамматики. Эти выводы имеют важные педагогические и
теоретические последствия.
INTRODUCTION
Spoken grammar is an important feature of language used in everyday
conversations. Since it was first introduced by Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy in the
late 1990s, how to effectively teach spoken grammar remains a topic of debate in the
field of second and foreign language instruction. Researchers and educators have shown
great interest in determining the best methods for teaching it. Some argue that there is
still a case for explicit grammar instruction within an implicit teaching framework. For
instance, while Timmis (2005) suggests that task-based learning is the most suitable
approach for teaching spoken grammar features, Mirzaei and Mowlaie (2017) advocate
for explicit instruction. Additionally, spoken grammar can be taught in cooperative or
competitive classroom environments, each offering distinct advantages. Regueras (2009)
emphasizes the importance of collaborative learning in the teaching process, whereas
Hung et al. (2013) find competitive learning to be more effective in enhancing learners’
progress.
This research aims to answer the following questions:
1.
Is there any difference between the effect of explicit and implicit instruction in
teaching
ellipsis
?
2.
Is there any difference between the effect of explicit and implicit instruction in
teaching
heads
?
3.
Is there any difference between the effect of explicit and implicit instruction in
teaching
fillers
?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Cullen and Kuo (2007) stated that spoken grammar is the grammar we face in
regular use by most of the native speakers of the language in the majority of their oral
interactions. The notion of spoken grammar has been used since the middle of the 1990s
after "Spoken Grammar: what is it and how can we teach it" by McCarthy and Carter was
published in the ELT Journal in 1995. Cullen and Kuo (2007) admit that spoken English is
simultaneous and not planned and produced spontaneously without a chance of editing.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
07 (2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
292
As language users cope with and adjust to the demands of “real
-time processing",
resulting in a “step
-by-step assembly of speech, this spontaneity produces certain
distinctive traits. Furthermore, the speech is mainly produced face-to-face, which creates
interactive situations with a" shared context. According to White (2004), there are six
main features of spoken English grammar. These include heads, tails, ellipses, fillers,
backchannels, and modal expressions. I will try to define the ones that my research
focuses on below.
ELLIPSIS
Ellipsis is omitting some elements that are normal parts of a structure. Cullen and
Kuo (2007) point out that ellipsis occurs in both oral and written English, while
situational ellipsis, omitting certain parts that are clear in a situation, is much more
common in spoken English.
For example, "Has everydiv finished?" (No ellipsis)
Teacher: Everydiv finished? (Ellipsis- auxiliary omitted) (Cambridge, Limerick
and Shannon Corpus).
HEADS
Heads are a way to direct the listener's attention to the topic before providing
further details. For example: The broken cups, did you throw them away? (Cambridge
Grammar of English, 192
–
194)
Did you throw the broken cups away? (No heads)
As McCarthy and Hughes state, heads not only give sensitivity to the listeners, but
also provide face-to-face interaction and real-time nature of speech. Heads help speakers
to spotlight the item they are talking about before commenting on it, allowing both the
speaker and the listener to control time to comprehend the situation (Cullen and Kuo,
2007).
FILLERS
Fillers are words, sounds, or phrases such as “um”, “well”, “like” or “er” that are
used to fill a space in communication. According to Willis (2003), they do not have a
certain meaning but rather allow the speaker to gather his thoughts.
For example: This is,
um
, occasionally I get this craving for dark chocolate.
(speaking sample by Bekzod Mirakhmedov)
HOW TO TEACH SPOKEN GRAMMAR?
Since spoken grammar was introduced to the area of methodology, there have
been questions about teaching methodology, i.e., how to proceed to teach details of
spoken grammar. This may include decisions on when and how to move beyond activities
that raise awareness and improve productive speaking skills. Many teachers point out
that learners need to be aware of the distinctive features of spoken and written grammar
and that knowing spoken English raises learners’ awareness of these differences.
Mumford (2008) agrees with the statement above and notes that knowing spoken
grammar items and being able to use them help to avoid problems in communications.
Although familiarity with the spoken grammar features is important, Timmis (2005)
claims that the ways spoken grammar is taught or whether it needs to be instructed were
paid very little attention.
In addition to the discussion on the necessity of raising awareness, the question of
how the features must be instructed is also controversial. Timmis (2005) finds tasks
most appropriate, whereas Mowlaie and Mirzaei (2017) focus on teaching those features
via explicit instructions. We can see that the question if we should be teaching spoken
grammar implicitly or explicitly is becoming common among ESL teachers.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
07 (2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
293
According to Timmis (2005), the implicit approach, introducing spoken language
features in authentic and natural texts that are suitable to learners’ interests is a
reasonable way. He claims that tasks such as cultural assessment tasks, language
discussion tasks, global understanding tasks, and noticing tasks are useful to meet
pedagogical and linguistic issues. He also summarizes that his approach confirms the
possibility, necessity, and usefulness of raising awareness.
Mirzaei and Mowlaie (2017) studied how explicit spoken grammar instructions
affect raising language learners’ awareness. As we know, explicit instructions are trying
to teach themes by explaining rules and then clarifying them in a suitable context with
examples. Rebuschat (2015) calls the process as “conscious learning process”. Mirzaei
and Mowlaie’s research shows that students had a better comprehension of the aspect of
the language via explicit instructions.
Willis (2003) and Thornbury (2005) suggested some useful ways of teaching
spoken grammar. According to their suggestion, the content and the context of materials
such as dialogues must be discussed at first, and then the idea that awareness-raising
activities is followed by practicing and producing features of spoken language. They also
highlight using audio materials such as recordings and radio reports and stress the use of
deductive and inductive methods. Awareness-raising activities usually include comparing
and analyzing speech and written texts. Practice and production activities can involve
learning fixed structures and drilling and dialogic activities such as roleplay.
Several studies have been conducted on features of spoken grammar. One of these
studies conducted by Aijmer (1998) investigated the function related to heads and tails
being used in various conversations. He stated that tails are used in two thirds of his data,
while the coverage of heads in his texts was around 30%. He summarized that heads and
tails help to make conversation easier for speakers.
In Carter and McCarthy’s corpus
-based study (1995), they introduced a new mode
of teaching based on awareness named “three Is” (Illustration, Interaction, and
Induction). Using this approach, students share their ideas by considering real data and
then produce their own. They think that this approach is more appropriate than the
“three Ps” (Presentation, Practice and Production) in terms of spoken grammar.
METHODOLOGY
METHODS
As both concept and numbers are important in my research, we decided to choose
the mixed method for my course paper.
PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 20 male and female pre-intermediate students of Ihumo
School (private Language Center) in Tashkent. They were taken from EFL classes. Their
age ranged between 16 and 18. 10 of them received implicit instructions, while the rest
received explicit instructions about spoken grammar. The learners were taken a level-
checker test so that they were at the same level.
MATERIALS
The following materials were used to conduct the research. As a pretest
(see Appendix A), students were given a transcription of a spoken conversation to
underline the features of spoken grammar to check whether they were aware of them.
The other materials included short interviews on YouTube. The written exercises were
taken from the book “A Handbook of Spoken Grammar” by Peterson et. al. (2012).
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
07 (2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
294
PROCEDURE
The students were chosen and were randomly located into two experimental
groups which are Group A, receiving explicit instruction, and Group B receiving implicit
instruction. Each group included 10 students. Then, they were given a pre-test. They had
eight classes twice a week. Each lesson lasted 120 minutes. For Group A, the teacher
explains the rules of using spoken grammar features on the board and practices them.
For Group B, themes were introduced implicitly. The students tried to analyze and notice
the rules via inputs. Inputs were videos, listening to audio, and reading passages.
The teacher helped participants to comprehend the rules. After being introduced with the
topic, groups did the same activities with the teacher. At the end of each session, they
were asked to do written exercises related to the features of spoken grammar.
As a summative test, students were asked to make sentences with the features of spoken
grammar. Their performance was scored, and the final data were summarized.
4. RESULTS
The results of the pre-
test show that students’ level of awareness of spoken
grammar features does not make much difference.
Groups
Results
Group A
56%
Group B
54%
Table 1.
The results of the pre-test
4.1.1. The first research question
The first research question aims to find the differences between the effects of
explicit and implicit instructions on raising Uzbek learners’ awareness of the spoken
grammar feature of ellipsis. According to the results of the written exercises, it was
evident that group A, which received explicit instructions, was much more able to find
ellipses from the material and to use ellipsis in their speech.
Table 2.
Results of grammar exercise for ellipsis
4.1.2. The second research question
The second research question aims to find the differences between the effects of
explicit and implicit instructions on raising Uzbek learners’ awareness of the spoken
grammar feature of heads. The difference between the two types of instruction is
significant. Explicit and implicit instruction had different effects on teaching students
heads. Group A performed better than Group B did.
Group type
Result of exercise 1.
Result of exercise 2
Average
Explicit (Group A)
90 %
95 %
92.5 %
Implicit (Group B)
80 %
87 %
83.5 %
Table 3.
Results of grammar exercise for heads
Group type
Performance
Explicit instruction
89%
Implicit instruction
75%
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
07 (2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
295
4.1.3. The third research question
The third research question was aimed to analyze the possible differences between
the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on ESL learners’ awareness of spoken
grammar features of fillers. The result was that the difference between the two types of
instruction is significant. Group B was more confident at recognizing fillers.
Group type
Results
Percentage
Explicit (Group A)
10/ 15
67 %
Implicit (Group B)
13/ 15
86 %
Table 3.
The results of grammar exercises for fillers (Appendix E)
DISCUSSION
The results showed that instruction had a strong impact on learning. Group A
outperformed Group B in understanding ellipsis and heads. My findings differ from
Timmis (2005), who favored implicit instruction for spoken grammar but align with
Green and Hecht (1992) and Mirzaei and Mowlaei (2017), who supported explicit
instruction for grammar.
For teaching fillers, an implicit approach worked better, as participants learned by
watching everyday English videos. Mohammed (2004) argued that inductive and
deductive tasks improve grammar awareness, while Batstone (2012) preferred a task-
based approach.
Ruhlemann (2008) and Ellis (2003) emphasized the importance of finding effective
methods for teaching spoken grammar, using both explicit and implicit instruction.
Differences in findings may be due to participant age, educational background, and
proficiency level. In Uzbekistan, the implicit approach is new, which might have affected
adaptation. Additionally, task-based teaching is not yet well-established in the teacher-
centered classes in Uzbekistan, potentially influencing the results.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This study shows that explicit instruction has an advantage, while implicit
instruction has a long-term effect. Participants who received instruction, whether
implicit or explicit, were more successful than those who did not. Both methods are
important, as shown in the research questions, but teachers should be flexible in
choosing the right technique based on the feature they are teaching.
For example, teaching heads and ellipses benefits from explicit explanations
followed by authentic examples, while fillers and backchannels are better taught through
exposure to real English conversations. Teachers should be able to switch between
methods depending on the grammar feature and context.
These findings can help teachers, students, syllabus designers, and researchers.
Teachers can choose the appropriate instruction type, learners can improve their
comprehension and production of spoken grammar, and syllabus designers can create
suitable activities. This may also encourage further study of spoken grammar.
REFERENCES:
1.
Aijmer
,
K.
(1989). Themes and Tails: The Discourse Functions of Dislocated
Elements.
The
Nordic
Journal
of
Linguistics
,
12(2),
137-154.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S033258650000202X
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
07 (2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
296
2.
Batstone, R. (2012). Language form, implicit language teaching, and the
classroom context.
ELT journal
, 66(4), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs058
3.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language.
Applied
Linguistic,
16(2) 141-158
4.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2017). Spoken grammar: Where are we and where
are we going?. Applied Linguistics, 38(1) 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv047
5.
Cullen, R., & Kuo. I. C. V. (2007). Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A
missing link? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 361-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-
7249.2007.tb00063.x
6.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching.
Oxford: Oxford
University Press
.
7.
Hung, H. C., Young, S. S. C., & Lin, C. P. (2013). No student left behind: a
collaborative and competitive game-based learning environment to reduce the
achievement gap of EFL students in Taiwan.
Technology Pedagogy and Education
24(1),
1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.822412
8.
Mirzaei, M., & Mowlaie, B. (2017). Effect of explicit spoken grammar instruction
on raising pre-
intermediate Iranian EFL learner’s competence.
Global Journal of
Educational Studies
3(1), 71. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/gjes.v3i1.10531
9.
Mumford, S. (2008). An analysis of spoken grammar: the case for production.
ELT Journal
63(2), 137
–
144, https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn020.
10.
Peterson, K., Caygill, C., & Sewell, R. (2012).
A handbook of spoken grammar
.
Delta Publishing
11.
Regueras, L. (2009) Cooperative and competitive learning strategy in a
communication networks course.
Transactions on Education
54(2), 302
–
307.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2010.2053933
12.
Rebuschat, P. (2015). Implicit and explicit learning languages. Amsterdam,
Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
20(1), iii-iv. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/25582
13.
Ruhlemann, C. (2008). A registered approach to teaching conversation:
Farewell to standard English?
Applied Linguistics 29(4).
672-693.
14.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach grammar.
Edinburgh: Pearson Educated
Limited.
15.
Timmis, I. (2005). Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar.
ELT
Journal 59(2) http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eltj/cci025
16.
Willis, D. (2003). Rules, patterns and words: Grammar and lexis in English
language teaching. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press
.
