Imperatives and Structures with Imperative Meaning in English Language Teaching
Petranka Ruseva, Bulgaria
Petranka Ruseva works at College-Dobrich, Konstantin Preslavsky University of Shumen, Bulgaria, where she has been teaching English since 2001. Her research interests are in linguistics, methodology, and recently in the application of corpus linguistics in English language teaching. E-mail: ruseva_p@shu.bg
Menu
Introduction
In the Direct Method
In the Audiolingual Method
In the Total Physical Response
In the Communicative Approach
Child’s development and language development (imperatives and SWIM)
The role of the teacher
In Communicative Language Teaching
Functionalism
The role of online corpora
Conclusions
References
The desire to achieve better results in foreign language teaching urges teachers to search for new methods and approaches. However, the success in teaching is inextricably linked not only to how to teach but also to what to teach. It has a lot in common with Linguistics, which is known to be the scientific study of language, and there are three aspects to this study that are to be considered: language form, language meaning, and language in context. The findings in language inevitably affect what is to be taught in English language classes. In this article, I would like to draw the attention to a tiny bit of language use which concerns imperatives and some structures with imperative meaning (SWIM). I accept the former as only those structures that have both the well-known form (bare stem) and at the same time carry some kind of inducement, whereas the latter are structures (my focus is on you+must/can/will+infinitive in particular) which in the framework of functional linguistics are considered polite variations of the standard form that could be defined as directives. As both types convey a similar meaning, it could be suggested that they are a source of speech variation that should not be neglected in foreign language classes and consequently it should affect language teaching. Despite the fact that each of the methods and approaches in foreign language teaching is useful in one way or another, some of them, in what concerns imperatives and SWIM, are worth to be paid special attention. Total Physical Response is almost right away associated with giving instructions and commands. Contrastive linguistics has contributed no less to language teaching. By trying to outline the similarities and differences between languages, an unsuccessful first attempt was made to base the teaching syllabus on the contrast between the differences being observed (Granger, 2003; Fernandez, 2006). A revival came after the downturn and in the last two decades of the 20th century the “functional approach to language brought about a new methodology which made it possible to apply the results of contrastive analysis on areas where it had previously failed, as well as opening up its scope of application and bridging the gap between theory and practice” (Fernandez, 2006, p. 523). Nowadays Corpus Linguistics is thought to be the methodology looked for. It is claimed that it is the most suitable one for contrastive functional analysis (ibid.). By the help of authentic electronic corpus, Corpus linguistics is a way to confirm or deny the theoretical findings that are to be taught.
As it is claimed about second language acquisition to be a product of a number of factors as different learners in different situations learn in a different way (Ellis, 1985), the same view could be hold about foreign language teaching. Consequently, there is not only one way possible to achieve successfully the goal of learning a foreign language and the variety of methods and approaches provide at least to some extent, if not completely, some useful ideas. Therefore, several methods and approaches are suggested as appropriate in terms of teaching imperatives and SWIM and some conditions and roles are underlined as important in teaching this particular bit of the English language.
Direct method developed as a reaction to the Grammar-translation method and it was an attempt to integrate as much as possible the target language in the instruction. Mother tongue in foreign language classes was not encouraged and the exclusion of it imposed the use of instructions predominantly on the part of the teacher. The role of teachers is important because as Hughes (1981) warns if the number of phrases that are used in the classroom are limited, it may have a really harmful effect on learners. As the structures of the pattern you+ modal verb (can, must or will) +infinitive are possible to carry similar meanings as imperatives (both in form and meaning) do, it is appropriate to mention that diversification of teachers’ language using all the variants mentioned is advisable. While managing the situation in the classroom, teachers can use a number of phrases applicable to any normal social situation. Doing this, as Hughes (1981) claims, teachers show contextualized use of the phrases and help learners to get used to the link between form and function.
Audiolingual method, dominant in the 1960s, was “based on the principle that language learning is habit formation” (Mora, 2013). It teaches language structures basically through drills. Grammar explanations are rarely given or not mentioned at all. Thus grammar is taught inductively. And this is also true about the imperative forms, i.e. their simplicity does not require special explanations and students can easily find the rule by themselves. The regular use, mostly by teachers, works as a consolidation of the imperative structure and SWIM in all English classes. As Audiolingual method introduces the idea of developing the four language skills consecutively beginning with listening, then speaking, reading and finally writing, the everyday listening to instructions is expected to promote speaking and later on to affect writing in one way or another.
Asher’s method Total Physical response (TPR) seems even more appropriate for teaching imperatives than the two methods mentioned above. According to Mora (2013) three are the main hypotheses outlined in TPR. One of them concerns listening as a crucial factor for language learning. After listening and responding with physical movements, thus synchronizing language with individual’s body, speech develops naturally and spontaneously. The second one suggests that “the brain and the nervous system are biologically programmed to acquire language” (ibid.) and the right hemisphere should be involved in learning first by combining movement with language comprehension before speech can occur. The third one emphasizes the role of physical movement as a means of avoiding stress, which Asher finds necessary for successful language learning. This method embraces the idea that the processes of first language learning are the same ones as those that should be followed in second language teaching and learning (Richards & Rodgers, 1986) and why not in foreign language teaching, too.
What makes TPR close to the topic of imperatives is that this approach involves instructions as a way of teaching. Giving instructions by teachers is usually followed by verbal activity or physical action, or even both. As Richards and Rodgers (1986, p. 87) associate TPR with the ““trace theory” of memory in psychology” they argue that the intensity of tracing memory connection affects recollection. Thus, for example, the instruction “Write down the new words”, repeated every time when writing should take place and followed by the motor activity of writing itself, should lead to remembering the expression quickly.
Jaffke (2006) argues that the only way to master what has been learned during the course of study is to revise it often and completely. There is no better way to go over and over again something, in what concerns imperatives, than by giving instructions that are a necessary part of the course of the lesson. Asher (1977, p. 4) underscores the importance of the verb in the imperative as according to him “most of the grammatical structure of the target language and hundreds of vocabulary items can be learned from the skillful use of the imperative by the instructor”. Although calling the imperative “a powerful facilitator of learning” (Asher 1977, p. 28), the TPR developer recommends to use it together with many other techniques. There are some other ways that imperative forms can be taught. Jaffke (2006) emphasizes the importance of poetic language and the role of rhythm and rhyme which facilitate fast memorizing. This can be done using different songs and poems in imperative (e.g., the song Don’t put your trousers on your head - www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF5pbroiSoA)
The Communicative approach is another useful way for teaching imperatives and SWIM. Among a number of approaches, Canale and Swain (1980) outline two types – the grammatical approach and the communicative approach. The grammatical approach is organized on the basis of the grammatical forms and their combinations in order to form grammatical sentences. The communicative approach, also called functional/notional approach, is described by Canale and Swain (1980, p. 2) as “organized on the basis of communicative functions (e.g. apologizing, describing, inviting, promising) that a given learner or group of learners needs to know and emphasizes the ways in which particular grammatical forms may be used to express these functions appropriately”. Richards and Rodgers (1986, p. 66) ascribe two aims to the Communicative approach that is to: “(a) make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication”. The authors refer to Howatt who distinguishes between the strong and the weak version of the approach. The former is depicted as “‘learning to use’ English, the latter entails ‘using English to learn it’” (ibid.). The topic of the present work implies the appropriateness of both variants but nevertheless one of the versions is preferable as classroom instructions are implicitly acquired through communication which is listening to instructions and following them respectively.
Richards and Rodgers (1986, p. 69) attribute to Hymes the coinage of the term “communicative competence” in his intention to “contrast a communicative view of language and Chomsky’s theory of competence”. Canale and Swain (1980, p. 27) consider communicative competence as “composed minimally of grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and communication strategies, or […] strategic competence”. They argue that first of all the goal of the communicative approach is to integrate these types of knowledge easier and without overemphasizing one on behalf of the others. The grammatical competence includes “knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology” (Canale & Swain, 1980, 29, 30) and it is important for learners to have the knowledge how to decide what words to use in order to express themselves accurately. In terms of imperatives and SWIM, grammatical competence will facilitate the use of the correct forms of bare infinitive and help to build the correct structre of you+modal verb (can/must/will)+infinitive.
The sociolinguistic competence which consists of “sociolinguistic rules of use and rules of discourse” (Canale & Swain, 1980, p. 30) is important “when there is a low level of transparency between the literal meaning of an utterance and the speaker’s intention”. As related to imperatives it concerns most of the use of you can but also the rest of the modal verbs mentioned above. Learners should also decide whether it is more relevant to use (or decode if they are in the role of listener) imperative forms or rather choose a polite way in saying the same in the form of declarative clauses with a milder obligation effect due to the presence of can. The appropriateness of the propositions within a particular sociolinguistic context is pointed to depend on “contextual factors such as topic, role of participants, setting, and norms of interaction” (ibid). In a real speech situation in classroom both grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence are necessary to be developed in students in order to be able to use imperatives and structures with imperative meaning successfully.
The importance of speaking of language is underscored by Wittgenstein (1958) in the course of his elucidating the term “language-game” where he claims that it is “a form of life”. Speech development of young children confirms the adequacy of Speech act theory. Clark (2006, p. 563) pays attention to the fact presented by Ervin-Tripp that “by age two, for example, [children] readily treat negated why questions as requests for action”. Halliday (1993, p. 106) also points out some observations on children learning grammar. He argues that they “are able to sequence their learning of the grammar, beginning with those options that stand out as being the more frequent”. He considers “quantitatively unmarked (more frequent) and formally unmarked (simpler)” options. Imperative forms are in general both quantitatively and formally unmarked as compared to you+modal verb (can/must/will)+infinitive in what describes classroom language, especially in giving instructions on the part of the teacher. The role of frequency and simplicity is noticed by Aikhenvald (2010), too. She comes to the conclusion that early acquisition of command forms, including imperatives and command strategies has much in common with formal simplicity and also with what children hear most often in the speech of those around them, especially of people who take care about them. Children conform with the age of the hearer and adjust their way or speaking as the younger ones are addressed by shorter utterances and attention-getters compared to older ones who receive “longer utterances, few imperatives, and no attention-getters (Clark, 2006, p. 573). Hymes (1972, p. 279) claims that “Data from the first years of acquisition of English grammar show children to develop rules for the use of different forms in different situations and n awareness of different acts of speech”. This confirms the fact that children keep the two general pragmatic principles of language users: conventionality and contrast, where the former presents the idea that “[f]or certain meanings, speakers assume that there is a conventional form that should be used in the language community’ and the latter that “[s]peakers assume that any difference in form signals a difference in meaning” (Clark, 2006, p. 567). Canale and Swain (1980, p. 23) do not support the “teleological point of view (i.e. that a given form exists because it is needed for a given purpose)” and they rather prefer to adhere to the other way round, i.e. that “use serves grammar form”. They (Canale & Swain, 1980, pp. 23-24) find confirmation of this idea in studies of children’s first language acquisition as they “may use a single form for many different communicative functions” due to its simplicity. Imperative form is generally considered to be really simple but there are rules to be followed to use SWIM right. The structure should be taught as a chunk or pre-fab e.g: “You can __”, where the slot is filled with what is necessary as a verb for the particular speech act. Nevertheless, there are different classroom activities that can help students to acquire the structure and facilitate the automation process.
As Richards and Rogers (1986, p. 24) suggest teacher roles in methods raise several issues. The first one concerns “(a) the types of functions teachers are expected to fulfill, whether that of practice director, counselor, or model, for example”. The second is close to it by “(b) the degree of control the teacher has over how learning takes place”. While in TPR the teachers “must follow the imperative-based format for lessons” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 93) and their role is of “drill master, director, and motivator”, in Community Language Learning it is the role of “counselor, supporter, and facilitator” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 154). These roles require appropriate use of language and are a favourable possibility for SWIM to be evolved in teacher’s discourse. For example a counselor is supposed to use a milder form of expression thus allowing the use of you+can+infinitive, while a strict remark to keep silence could give reasons for the use of you+will+infinitive. Imperative form is sometimes considered as more or less neutral and could serve as a model to do something. Social contexts and interaction between speaker and hearer should be taken into consideration when dealing with the frequencies of the various options, i.e. “when speakers produce an imperative, they place their listeners into the role of potentially complying with their request.[…] the interpersonal metafunction also concerns related grammatical systems such as negation and modality in which speakers indicate the certainty with which they are asserting their statements, and how insistent they intend their requests to be taken” Fries (2001, p. 98).
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) appeared at the beginning of the 1970s as a reaction to the audiolingual method but Dörnyei (2009, p. 33) assumes that they both have similar objective, i.e. “to develop a functional communicative L2 competence in the learner”. As it was noted above second language and foreign language are different phenomena but nevertheless some findings concerning the former could be applied successfully to the latter. Therefore, the three elements of a learning theory that can be inferred from CLT practices that Richards and Rodgers (1986, p. 72) pay attention to, i.e. the communicative principle, the task principle and the meaningfulness principle have their significant role in foreign language learning. The first one states that the “[a]ctivities that involve real communication promote learning”, the second one is about “[a]ctivities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning”, and the third involves language, i.e. “Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning process” (ibid.). These principles are close to what Canale and Swain (1980, p. 24) note as observed by other authors as well, and namely that “second language learning will proceed more effectively when grammatical usage is not abstracted from meaningful context”. Learning and acquisition are terms and at the same time issues discussed much in literature. Chomsky’s (1965, p. 56) idea about acquisition does not exclude the understanding that human beings can learn things. Richards and Rodgers (1986, pp. 18, 72) refer to Krashen’s distinction between acquisition and learning as acquisition concerns “the natural assimilation of language rules through using language for communication”, while learning is about “the formal study of language rules and is a conscious process”. Halliday (1993, pp. 112-113) argues that learning language should not be secluded but it should be inseparable from all other aspects of learning and at the same time he disapproves of “language acquisition” as an “inappropriate metaphor”. Richards and Rodgers (1986, p. 70) describe Halliday’s functional account of language use as “[a]nother linguistic theory of communication favoured in CLT” (Communicative Language Teaching). As acquisition is related to the unconscious development of the foreign language system in real communication, it seems appropriate to give it the credit for gaining the knowledge of imperatives. When teachers instruct students in class, they do not teach the form but rather use different forms to make students do the things required. The requirements of CLT procedures are often directed to “less teacher-centered classroom management” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 78) but giving instructions is still necessary. On the other hand, structures of the type you+can+infinitive need to be taught first and after that practised. In this sense they are closer to learning rather than to unconscious acquisition though they are learnt as chunks not as grammar bits.
Although Systemic-Functional Linguistics appeared as early as 1960s as an approach to language developed by Halliday and his followers, it serves nowadays to language education purposes as well as to these of discourse analysis (O’Donnell, 2012). According to O’Donnell (p. 2) Systemic-Functional Linguistics “explores how language is used in social contexts to achieve particular goals” and stresses the importance of “language function (what it is used for)” rather than “language structure (how it is composed)” thus emphasizing that ‘meaning implies choice’ (p. 5). This in terms of imperatives could be interpreted as concerning the choice between imperative form and you+can+infinitive/you+must+infinitive/you+ will+infinitive.
According to Leech (1983) children’s acquisition of language is connected to the development of their communicative needs and abilities in society and therefore it is clear why functionalists study language in relation to its social function. Fernandez (2006, p. 526) points out that in the functional approach the concept of “language as a tool for communication” is put forward. Petrashkevich (2013, pp. 27-28) also claims the cognitive and the communicative as “the language’s main functions” i.e. concerning “interpretation of the world” and “interaction among the members of the community”, respectively. In relation to this he makes a comment that in functional grammar the smallest syntactic unit is the clause and it can reflect entire situations with its structure which “is open to transformations with regard to the purpose of the communication (giving information, asking for information, giving directives)” (ibid.). But functional grammar has also a lot in common to registers, authentic corpora, etc.
A number of corpora are accessible online to help a variety of language research works. The use of corpora (BNC, COCA, etc.) is one of the ways to examine native speaker’s language. In terms of imperatives and structures with imperative meaning BYU-BNC offers a collection of spoken classroom language. It can be examined with the help of different tools (e.g. WordSmith 6.0). A corpus is needed for more than one reason. Hunston (2000, pp. 3, 13-14) outlines the following: one cannot always trust intuition; a corpus can show what is “typical patterning and what is unusual; in comparison with intuition corpora give more certainty about the sequences that occur frequently”. Butler (2005, p. 8, 9) gives another reason, i.e. the necessity to study authentic language in order to test grammar. This is what Granger (2003, p. 19) says that researchers in Contrastive linguistics have reached to and that is “rely on corpora to verify, refine or clarify theories that hitherto had had little or no empirical support and to achieve a higher degree of descriptive adequacy”. As Filipovic (1972, p. 499) points out “[o]nly a corpus can verify some doubtful cases of grammaticality” but at the same time it has to be taken into account that “a corpus cannot and should not replace theory, it should not come before theory nor instead of it”. The results with the researched patterns can be applied to foreign language teaching in order to help students learn how to sound more native-like in their use of language.
Two are the main things that are emphasized. The first one concerns the variety of ways to express oneself that the English language gives which should affect language teaching. Although the teacher has no longer the central role in the classroom, his/her role still remains quite significant, e.g. instructor – imperatives/ you+must+infinitive; counselor – you+can+infinitive; to maintain discipline – you+will+infinitive, etc. This confirms the widely accepted view that there are different structures which carry imperative meaning that correspond to the communicative uses which enriches language and makes it multifunctional. The second one regards the importance of new methods and approaches in language teaching but also emphasizes the significance of the well-known old ones that could suggest useful ideas. As teacher’s role is more or less substantial for successful acquisition of language patterns such as imperatives and SWIM, teachers need a basis on which to develop their pedagogy which could combine some of the methods and approaches considered here.
Aikhenvald, A. (2010). Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Asher, J. (1977). Learning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete Teacher’s Guide Book. Los Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oaks Productions. 1977, 2nd edition 1982.
Butler, C. (2005). Functional approaches to language. In: The Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and contrastive perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V. pp. 3-18.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1): 1-47.
Clark, E. V. (2006). Pragmatics and Language Acquisition. In: Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), TheHandbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004/2006, pp.562 – 577.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M. I. T. Press (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The 2010s. Communicative language teaching in the 21st century: The ‘principled communicative approach’. Perspectives – Fall 2009 – Vol. XXXVI, n.2, pp. 33-43.
Ellis R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. First published 1985, Eight impression 1992, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fernandez, M. I. (2006). Corpus-based Cross-linguistic Research: directions and applications[James’ Interlingual Linguistic Revisited], pp. 520-527. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.bg/scholar?cluster=18432314146464672068&hl=bg&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1
Filipović, R. (1972). The Use of a Corpus in Contrastive Studies* - Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, pp.489-500.
Fries, P. H. (2001) Systemic Functional Linguistics: A Close Relative of French Functional Linguistics. La Linguistique 2001/2 (Vol. 37), pp. 89-100.
Granger, S. (2003). The corpus approach: a common way forward for Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.120.3768&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993).Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning. Linguistics and Education 5, 93-116.
Hughes, G. S. (1981). A Handbook of Classroom English, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S. & G.Francis (2000). Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam;Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvannia Press, 1971. In: Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. J. B. Pride and Janer Holmes (eds.), Penguin Books.
Jaffke, C. (2006). Foreign Languages in Steiner Waldorf Education Laying the Foundation:The First Three Years of English, Humanising Language Teaching,Year 8; Issue 1; January 06. Retrieved from http://old.hltmag.co.uk/jan06/mart04.htm
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Mora, J. ( 2013). Second and Foreign Language Teaching Methods. Retrieved from http://moramodules.com/ALMMethods.htm#The%20Audio-lingual%20Approach
O’Donnell, M. (2012). Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics for Discourse Analysis. (Language, Function and Cognition, 2011-12). Retrieved from http://web.uam.es/departamentos/filoyletras/filoinglesa/Courses/LFC11/LFC-2011-Week1.pdf
Petrashkevich, N. (20130). Functional Grammar as a Practical Discipline. LATEUM 2013 Conference Proceedings. ELT and Linguistics 2013: New Strategies for Better Solutions. Editor-in-chief: prof. Olga Aleksandrova, Moskva, pp. 26-29.
Richards, J. C. & Theodore S. Rogers. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Fifteenth printing 1999.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Please check the English Language Improvement for Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the English Language Improvement for Adults course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the British Life, Language and Culture course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
|
