29.4860, Review: English; Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition; Linguistic Theories: Niemeier (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4860. Thu Dec 06 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.4860, Review: English; Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition; Linguistic Theories: Niemeier (2017)

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 10:22:55
From: Luciana Forti [Luciana.forti at unistrapg.it]
Subject: Task-based grammar teaching of English

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36411357


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-5106.html

AUTHOR: Susanne  Niemeier
TITLE: Task-based grammar teaching of English
SUBTITLE: Where cognitive grammar and task-based language teaching meet
SERIES TITLE: narr studienbücher
PUBLISHER: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Luciana Forti, Università per Stranieri di Perugia

SUMMARY 

Task-based grammar teaching of English, by Susanne, Niemeier, provides a
theoretical and practical account of how cognitive grammar can be integrated
into task-based language teaching. 

Part I, “Didactic and linguistic theory” (pp. 13-72), describes the context
which the book has grown from, namely that of EFL teaching in Germany. It
starts off by outlining the approach that is most widely used within this
context, the so-called “PPP” (presentation, practice, production), and
indicates how this inevitably influences the opportunity of integrating
task-based grammar teaching into EFL syllabi in Germany. 

It then covers the main theoretical principles governing task-based language
teaching, defining it as learner-centred and meaning-oriented (p. 23) and
supports this by citing R. Ellis (2003: 177): “Acquisition occurs in, rather
than as a result of, interaction. From this perspective, then, L2 acquisition
is not a purely individual-based process but shared between the individual and
other persons”. The author of the volume, Susanne Niemeier, cites Ellis once
more in order to provide a definition of what a task is as opposed to an
exercise, stating that in the context of a task learners act mainly as
language users, while in the context of an exercise learners act mainly as
language learners. 

By making reference to the relevant literature, the author distinguishes
between task-based and task-supported language learning. In the first case, we
are in the presence of a fully structured syllabus based on specific tasks,
while in the second case, tasks are used alongside other modes of instruction.
Because of how entrenched the PPP system is in the German language learning
and teaching context, the author indicates the second approach (i.e. the
task-supported one) as the approach that she has adopted in her own teaching
practice, and which informs the present volume. 

This section of Part I then goes on to describe the origins of the approach,
which is reported to have been first implemented in India by N.S. Prabhu, who
devised a syllabus based on a series of activities within tasks that were used
as a vehicle for the production of meaningful language, rather than on a
progression of language items. Some of the activities used by Prabhu and
reported by the author are information gap activities, involving “a transfer
of given information from one person to another – or from one form to another,
or from one place to another – generally calling for the encoding or decoding
of information from or into a language” (Prabhu 1987: 46, cited in Neimeier
2017: 27); reasoning gap activities, based on “deriving some new information
from given information through processes of interference, deduction, practical
reasoning, or a perception of relationships or patterns” (Prabhu 1987: 46,
cited in Neimeier 2017: 27); or finally, opinion gap activities that involve
“identifying and articulating a personal preference, feeling, or attitude in
response to a given situation” (Prabhu 1987: 47, cited in Neimeier 2017: 27).
In differentiating among the different kinds of tasks, Prabhu adopts a
cognitive typology. Other authors prefer a psycholinguistic typology (Pica et
al. 1993, cited in Neimeier 2017: 27) and differentiate between jigsaw tasks,
information gap tasks, problem-solving tasks, decision making tasks, and
opinion exchange tasks. In other authors still, we may find a pedagogical
typology (Willis 1996, cited in Neimeier 2017: 28), where tasks are
categorized into listing, ordering, comparing, problem-solving, sharing
personal experiences and creative tasks. As a result, Susanne Neimeier
highlights how there is no single view in literature as to how tasks can be
classified. 

In the process of designing a task, Niemeier adopts the so-called
“task-cycle”, which can cover a single lesson or a series of lessons. In this
volume, the approach of the author is based on single-lesson tasks. 

The first phase of the task cycle is formed by the pre-task phase, which has a
dual aim: re-activating previously presented vocabulary that can be useful for
the lesson, as well as introducing the communicative topic of the lesson. The
following phase is the during-task phase, based on the learners carrying out
of the task, and then planning the report on the task’s outcome, and finally
sharing the reports themselves. The third and final phase is the post-task
phase, where the teacher draws the learners’ attention to the language that
was encountered while carrying out the task. This final phase is based on both
the analysis and the practice of the target language for the lesson. The
author provides an example to clarify how the task cycle can be applied. 

The following paragraph covers the main principles of cognitive grammar and
how its development  contrasted with generative grammar. Niemeier provides a
brief historical overview, indicating the three main approaches in cognitive
linguistics, represented by Lakoff/Johnson, Talmy, and Langacker, and then
discusses the foundational concepts it is based on: embodiment, the
lexis-grammar continuum, how categorization changes among cultures, the
usage-based perspective, the perspective on language acquisition, based on
learners or acquirers extracting information from the input they are exposed
to. Finally, it presents the advantages of applied cognitive grammar, with
special reference to its contextualized nature. 

After describing task-based language teaching and cognitive grammar
separately, the final pages of this chapter show how the two approaches can be
combined. The basic concept consists in the opportunity of reaching two aims:
the communicative task on the one hand, and the form and meaning of the
grammatical structures required to perform the communicative task in question
on the other. 

Niemeier provides a number of arguments to support the choice, highlighting
the points that the two approaches share. First of all, they both consider
meaning as the central component upon which a lesson should focus on. However,
while task-based language learning literature usually sees meaning as opposed
to form, cognitive grammar sees form as meaningful as well. This leads to
seeing the combination of the two approaches as particularly fruitful.
Secondly, both approaches share the perspective of usage-based linguistics.
They both rely on situated learning within the framework of real-like
contextualized experiences, such as those that learners would find themselves
having outside of the classroom. Another area of commonality is quoted from
Robinson & Ellis (2008: 494, cited in Niemeier 2017, 74-75), and identifies
the aim of task-based teaching in the use of techniques to draw “learner
awareness to form-meaning mappings in the L2, and the communicative functions
these can help serve”. The other argument that supports the idea of bridging
the gap between task-based language teaching and cognitive grammar consists in
the fact that they both foster double-coding, as they both invite
visualizations, real objects and actions being performed. Furthermore,
cognitive grammar offers the teacher a number of additional resources that can
be useful in formulating explanations of grammar points that can either
constitute the explicit content of the explanation given from the teacher to
the students, or it can be the aim the teacher strives for in guiding the
students towards an autonomous discovery of the explanation of a grammatical
structure. 

In conclusion, Niemeier admits that the major challenge in adopting an
approach combining task-based language learning and cognitive grammar lies in
the learners’ and the teachers’ assumed theories about grammar and grammar
teaching. At this point, the author cites Meunier (2008: 103; cited in
Niemeier, 2017: 75), according to whom the majority of learners today “still
express a need for short and easy-to-understand explanations and rules of
grammar”, and this frequently ties in with methods they have become accustomed
to in previous experiences of second/foreign language learning. However, the
author underlines how changing these views is normally a matter of time, and
that “rethinking grammar is a quite a challenge, but it is definitely worth
the effort” (p. 75). 

Part II, “Case studies” (pp. 77-261), forms the larger part of volume and is
devoted to showing how the principles behind the integration of cognitive
grammar with task-based language teaching can actually be applied with respect
to specific case study scenarios. The author focuses her attention on ten
different case studies and describes each of them from the point of view of
form, meaning and how this two-level analysis can be integrated into the
design of a task-based activity on the basis of the task cycle structure
outlined previously. 

The cognitive grammar analysis constitutes the basis upon which the
teacher/researcher plans the task-based learning, in terms of language
learning items related to the grammar and communicatively oriented learning
goals of the lesson. The cognitively oriented identification of the clusters
of meanings, pertaining to the linguistic component of the lesson planning,
arises in the language focus phase at the end of the task-based activity in
the form of cognitively enhanced explanations. 

The ten case studies are: tense, aspect, modality, conditionals, the passive
voice, prepositions, phrasal verbs, verb complementation, pronouns, and
articles. 

A brief conclusion to the book summarises its goals and how the author went on
to reach them.   

EVALUATION 

Susanne Niemeier has produced an extremely valuable book from a number of
perspectives. 
First, it is the result of her long experience in the field, as attested by
several publications which she has authored and edited throughout the years
(Niemeier 1999, 2003, 2013; Niemeier & Achard 2000; Achard & Niemeier 2004;
Martin et al. 2001). This contributes to the solidity of the argumentation
which characterizes the book all the way through. 
Second, its value stems from the fact that it is highly practical: not only
does it bridge a gap between cognitive grammar and task-based language
teaching, but it also, if not more importantly, does so between linguistic
theory and pedagogical practice. 

Each of the case study chapters contains full lessons plans disguised as
paragraphs: teachers and teacher trainers may be accustomed to seeing lesson
plans edited very schematically, in the form of tables and bullets points,
perhaps. The idea is to make them readily available for the ever so busy
teacher, allowing him/her to look at the lesson plan and have an immediate
perception of whether the lesson can fit into his or her needs for a specific
teaching and learning context. It is not the case of this book, conceived more
organically as a series of proposed task-based language learning activities
supported by a theoretical framework, a linguistic analysis pertaining to each
specific learning aim being considered. This might have the downside of
pushing away potential readers like teachers, who would have probably
benefited from a more schematic presentation of the “cognitive meets
task-based grammar lesson plans” which fill the book. 

Another merit of the book is that it emerges from the concrete experience of
the author, based in the German teaching context. Between the lines, the
reader understands that it is impossible to think about changing the teaching
approach being used within a certain context, without thinking about whether
it would be a viable thing to do within that context. The preference for
task-supported rather than task-based activities is a clear example of how the
author is able to use the literature on the topic to find the most suitable
key for adapting the approach to the context she finds herself in. 

Niemeier writes very clearly and convincingly: the pages flow very easily one
after the other and her argumentation is compelling. Summarizing paragraphs
are found at regular intervals, which ease the reader’s job even more. 

The bibliographical references are authoritative and reflect the key trends in
the relevant literature. The book does not assume a previous in-depth
knowledge of cognitive linguistics, and it is for this reason that the author
provides some basic, introductory pointers to the reader who is only beginning
to learn about this field. At the same, the volume provides a solid foundation
for reflection upon the intersection between cognitive linguistics and
task-based language teaching. 

However, one absence is that of corpora: when discussing the usage-based
perspective, the author fails to mention the role that corpora play in both
the analysis of learner language and in the classroom. Even when speaking
about the role of frequency, the empirical basis of this measure, which would
typically correspond to corpora, isn’t mentioned. This omission is however
understandable if we consider that, at least partly, it probably falls out of
the scope of the volume. 

The book can be stimulating for a wide range of research professionals,
including those working within different pedagogical frameworks. Those who for
example work on the integration of corpora in the classroom can easily see how
corpora can be integrated in the task cycle of one of the lessons outlined in
the book. 

The ideal readership of the book is likely to be formed by applied linguists
with a strong interest in pedagogical practices linked to cognitive grammar
and task-based language teaching, and by teacher trainers interested in the
new research developments. The curious language teacher with a bit of time on
the side will certainly appreciate the lessons plans hidden in the paragraphs,
and will undoubtedly be able to take full advantage of them in his/her
everyday teaching practice. 

REFERENCES

Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (eds.). 2004. Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language
Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching, Oxford, Oxford
University Press. 

Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., Dirven, R. (eds.). 2001, Applied Cognitive
Linguistics. 2 Vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Meunier, F. 2008. Corpora, cognition and pedagogical grammars. In: De Knop,
S., De Rycker, T. (eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, 91-120. 

Niemeier, S. 1999. A cognitive view on bilingualism and bilingual teaching and
learning, Journal of English Studies 2(99), 165-185.

Niemeier, S. (2003). The concept of metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics and its
didactic potential. In: Dagmar Abendroth-Timmer/Britta Viebrock/Michael Wendt
(eds.), Text, Kontext und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Frankfurt: Lang, 263-271.

Niemeier, S. (2013). A cognitive grammar perspective on tense and aspect. In:
Salaberry, R., Comajoan, L. (eds.), Research design and methodology in studies
on L2 tense and aspect. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 11-56.

Niemeier, S. & Achard, M. (eds.). 2000, Cognitive Linguistics and First
Language Acquisition. Special Issue of ''Cognitive Linguistics'' 11 –1/2.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Luciana Forti is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at the University for
Foreigners of Perugia, Italy. Her doctoral project deals with Data-driven
learning and the uses of corpora in the context of Italian as a second
language learning and teaching, with a focus on verb + noun collocations. She
is interested in bridging the gap between Applied Linguistics research and
second language teaching practices. She is also a CELTA qualified EFL teacher.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4860	
----------------------------------------------------------