The Third Institute for the Study of

Form, Meaning, and Human Behavior in Language

The Society’s Third Institute was held June 17-28, 2002 at The City College of New York. The College’s School of Education was co-sponsor. (The First Institute was held at City College in 1996.)

This was the first Columbia School Institute to have a thematic focus: the teaching of English as a Second Language. It had a two-part format: afternoon seminars on topics in functional linguistics, with an emphasis on English; and an intensive evening graduate course, credit optional, titled "Linguistics and the Grammar of English," co-taught by Alan Huffman and Joseph Davis. There were approximately twenty participants, not including presenters, making this the largest Columbia School Institute to date.

Seminar presenters and topics were:

Topics covered in the course included: word order (Control, Focus, and Kind of Differentiation systems), the articles (Status of Differentiation), participles (Vividness), and mood (Probability). Guest presenter for the topic of Control was Linda Miller, Hudson County Community College. Another topic of the course, and one with particular currency in the field now, was the problem of the pedagogical application of functional grammar, with special reference to the Natural Approach and to Focus on Form as background. Participants taking the course for credit prepared lesson plans on a grammatical topic designed specially for the type of student population they currently teach. There was also a final exam.

The Institute was housed during its eight days in one of the most attractive rooms available to the School of Education, thanks to the hospitality of Professor Catherine Fosnot and the staff of the "Math in the City" Project. Refreshments were provided daily by the Institute.

The planning committee for the Institute consisted of Joseph Davis, Wendy Gavis, Alan Huffman, Mary O’Riordan, Betsy Rodriguez-Bachiller, and Nancy Stern.

To judge from informal comments by participants, particularly the graduate students in Education, the Institute went far in filling a gap that they sensed in their training, namely what might be thought of as the gap between content (knowledge of English) and practice (pedagogy). These comments, from written essays by students, give a sense of that success:

Prior to taking this course and researching grammar pedagogy, I often treated grammar like a system of rules. In presenting a grammar point to my students, I would provide my own context, which in most cases consisted of sentences I invented myself. I relied heavily on textbook exercises to give my students the opportunity to practice applying the grammar rules they learned. However, I am planning to modify the way I teach grammar, because in light of the coverage of grammar I received in this course, I have modified the way I view grammar. . . . Grammar should be defined not as a system of rules, but rather as meaning-form connections. I think it will be helpful to my students if I provide them with explanations that do not depend on the adherence to or memorization of prescriptive rules, but instead focus on showing them how altering the form . . . can alter the meaning communicated.

Understanding that the "choice" of grammatical forms is motivated by intended meaning rather than rules, I can see that the teaching of grammar is not in opposition to the communicative and humanistic approaches that I employ. Therefore, I will continue to use these same methods, but I will take time to explore grammatical forms in context. As a class we will discuss, based on the context, why authors chose to use specific grammatical forms. Students’ understanding of the text will help them analyze the use of the grammatical forms. In turn, discussing the implications of those forms will help students gain new insight into the text. Also, since my students are concerned very much with self-expression, we will examine how different grammatical forms can help them do this more precisely. Most importantly, I will try to encourage my students to think of grammar as choices people make rather than rules we follow or break.

There is no doubt in my mind that grammar needs to be taught. Too many of my students have reached a plateau; they communicate verbally adequately, but they don’t have a clue as to how English can really work and they need that understanding to fulfill their academic and life ambitions. . . . The students I teach . . . are young enough to be taught a form-meaning relationship with little confusion because they have had little traditional grammar instruction. At a time [in their life] when students are just beginning to understand systematic relationships, the opportunity to present a grammar that illuminates the way language works, rather than defines and restricts it, would be a significant benefit. I have had the awful experience of constantly having to make up reasons why English works the way it works. Traditional grammar is a very leaky boat to sail on. However, I do realize [that while] the excitement about teaching a new grammar is easy, the application is difficult. The prime necessity is a strong understanding of the grammar, which I feel I am far from. I do, however, think it is a worthwhile and hopeful enterprise to grasp this kind of grammar and devise methods to pass it along to my students.

For our part, the instructors now believe that teacher development represents a fertile field for Columbia School. The field of second-language education, increasingly dissatisfied with the hands-off approach to grammar represented by the Natural Approach, is searching now for ways to re-incorporate grammar into the classroom without repeating the failures of the past. Surely a grammatical theory that explicitly recognizes the role of communication has something useful to say. Perhaps language practitioners will prove a receptive audience to a grammar that owes little to the orthodoxies of linguistic theory.