1. Method of teaching grammar Communicative competence: grammar for communication's sake

The results revealed that majority of the teachers could identify the different methods used in teaching grammatical structures in English language (Z = 8.6023). The findings further revealed that the teachers were very conversant with the traditional methods (Informative and Cognitive code-learning methods), while the Grammar Translation Teaching method was yet to gain high usage among the teachers (Z = 3.028, 5.574, 1.634 and .929). The findings are indication of the need for retraining programmes for English language teachers in secondary schools.

The Grammar Translation Method is the oldest method of teaching in India. It is as old as the international of English in the country. A number of methods and techniques have been evolved for the teaching of English and also other foreign languages in the recent past, yet this method is still in use in many part of India. It maintains the mother tongue of the learner as the reference particularly in the process of learning the second/foreign languages. The main principles on which the Grammar Translation Method is based are the following:

(i) Translation interprets the words and phrases of the foreign languages in the best possible manner.

(ii) The phraseology and the idiom of the target language can best be assimilated in the process of interpretation. 

(iii) The structures of the foreign languages are best learnt when compared and contrast with those of mother tongue.

In this method, while teaching the text book the teacher translates every word, phrase from English into the mother tongue of learners. Further, students are required to translate sentences from their mother tongue into English. These exercises in translation are based on various items covering the grammar of the target language. The method emphasizes the study of grammar through deduction that is through the study of the rules of grammar. A contrastive study of the target language with the mother tongue gives an insight into the structure not only of the foreign language but also of the mother tongue.

Advantages:

1. The phraseology of the target language is quickly explained. Translation is the easiest way of explaining meanings or words and phrases from one language into another. Any other method of explaining vocabulary items in the second language is found time consuming. A lot of time is wasted if the meanings of lexical items are explained through definitions and illustrations in the second language. Further, learners acquire some short of accuracy in understanding synonyms in the source language and the target language.

2. Teacher’s labour is saved. Since the textbooks are taught through the medium of the mother tongue, the teacher may ask comprehension questions on the text taught in the mother tongue. Pupils will not have much difficulty in responding to questions on the mother tongue. So, the teacher can easily assess whether the students have learnt what he has taught them. Communication between the teacher and the learnersdoes not cause linguistic problems. Even teachers who are not fluent in English can teach English through this method. That is perhaps the reason why this method has been practiced so widely and has survived so long.

Disadvantages:

1. It is an unnatural method. The natural order of learning a language is listening, speaking, reading and writing. That is the way how the child learns his mother tongue in natural surroundings. But in the Grammar Translation Method the teaching of the second language starts with the teaching of reading. Thus, the learning process is reversed. This poses problems.

2. Speech is neglected. The Grammar Translation Method lays emphasis on reading and writing. It neglects speech. Thus, the students who are taught English through this method fail to express themselves adequately in spoken English. Even at the undergraduate stage they feel shy of communicating through English. It has been observed that in a class, which is taught English through this method, learners listen to the mother tongue more than that to the second/foreign language. Since language learning involves habit formation such students fail to acquire habit of speaking English. Thus, they have to pay a heavy price for being taught through this method.

3. Exact translation is not possible. Translation is, indeed, a difficult task and exact translation from one language to another is not always possible. A language is the result of various customs, traditions, and modes of behaviour of a speech community and these traditions differ from community to community. There are several lexical items in one language, which have no synonyms/equivalents in another language. For instance, the meaning of the English word ‘table’ does not fit in such expression as the ‘table of contents’, ‘table of figures’, ‘multiplication table’, ‘time table’ and ‘table the resolution’, etc. English prepositions are also difficult to translate. Consider sentences such as ‘We see with our eyes’, ‘Bombay is far from Delhi’, ‘He died of cholera’, He succeeded through hard work’. In these sentences ‘with’, ‘from’, ‘of’, ‘through’ can be translated into the Hindi preposition ‘se’ and vice versa. Each language has its own structure, idiom and usage, which do not have their exact counterparts in another language. Thus, translation should be considered an index of one’s proficiency in a language.

4. It does not give pattern practice. A person can learn a language only when he internalizes its patterns to the extent that they form his habit. But the Grammar Translation Method does not provide any such practice to the learner of a language. It rather attempts to teach language through rules and not by use. Researchers in linguistics have proved that to speak any language, whether native or foreign entirely by rule is quite impossible. Language learning means acquiring certain skills, which can be learnt through practice and not by just memorizing rules. The persons who have learnt a foreign or second language through this method find it difficult to give up the habit of first thinking in their mother tongue and than translating their ideas into the second language. They, therefore, fail to get proficiency in the second language approximating that in the first language. The method, therefore, suffers from certain weaknesses for which there is no remedy

The Advantages of the Grammar-Translation Method:

The following are the advantages of the Translation Method for teaching of English as second language:

1.    It is an easy method:

·         In this method the child proceeds from the known to unknown. He already knows his mother tongue and now he learns the English equivalents.

2.    It helps in building vocabulary:

·         Translation method helps in the rapid expansion of vocabulary of the students as it avoids difficult definitions or lengthy explanations. The vocabulary is economically and effectively acquired. Students get the exact meanings of words.

3.    It saves teacher’s labor:

·         The teacher finds it very easy to prepare his lesson. He has not to think of the ways and means to explain new words. It doesn’t require the teacher to make use of audio-visual aids.

4.    Comprehension is easily tested:

·         Students’ comprehension of English, especially at the early stages can be easily tested by asking them to answer questions in the mother tongue.

5.    Grammar is easily taught:

·         Grammar of the foreign language is easily taught by comparing it with the grammar of the mother tongue.

The Disadvantages of the Grammar-Translation Method:

·         The disadvantages of the translation method are as under:

1.     It is an unnatural method:

·         In the translation method, the teacher starts teaching English to the students by teaching them reading first. But while learning his mother tongue the child learns first to understand spoken English and then speaking. The natural order of learning a language is listening, speaking, reading and writing. Translation method doesn’t follow this method.

2.     It neglects speech:

·         Translation method neglects speech no much attention is paid to oral work or drill work in this method. Besides this there is little ear-training as the teacher speaks the mother tongue most of the time.

3.     It neglects pattern practice:

·         There is no pattern practice in the translation method. The result is that students aren’t able to speak English correctly.

4.     It ignores habit formation:

·         Because of its neglect of speech and pattern practice. Translation method ignores habit formation. ‘The child never acquires the habit to think in English. Instead first he thinks in his mother tongue and translates his thoughts into English.

5.     Exact translation is not possible:

·         Language is the result of the history, tradition, culture and the life of the people speaking them. That is why they can’t translate exactly from one language to another.

6.     Idiomatic expressions are difficult to translate:

·         The idiomatic expressions are hard to translate aptly.one is likely to translate literally and absurdly.

7.     It teaches English by rules:

·         Translation method tries to teach English by rules rather than by use.

8.     It makes the student a passive listener:

·         In the translation method the student isn’t an active participant in the teaching learning process. He is passive listener.

9.     It is uninteresting:

·         Translation method is dull and mechanical. It is bookish. No aids are used to make lessons interesting. It reduces the learning of a living language to that of a dead language.

The advantages of the Grammar-Translation Method:

In Grammar-Translation Method, the first language is maintained as the reference system in the learning of the second language. Translation from one language to another plays a certain part in language learning. in the Grammar-Translation Method, comparison between two languages helps students to have a better understanding of the meaning of abstract words and complicated sentences. Systematic study of grammatical rules plays an important role in fostering students’ ability of reading comprehension and producing grammatically correct sentences. It has special importance for students in teachers’ colleges for whom a good mastery of the grammar system of the target language. Understanding and manipulating the morphology and syntax will develop students’ ability of analyzing and solving problems.The focus on understanding literary texts provides the situation in which reading and writing abilities are well trained.The Grammar-Translation makes few demands on teachers although it often creates frustration for students.

Disadvantages of the Grammar-Translation Method

Overemphasis on translation can never emancipate the learners from dependence on the first language.The Grammar-Translation puts too much emphasis on reading and writing and neglects listening and speaking. Knowing a large number of grammatical rules cannot ensure that students can use them appropriately in real communicative situation.In the Grammar-Translation Method, the texts are mostly taken form literary works. The language learned often doesn’t meet the practical needs of the learners.Memorizing grammar rules and bilingual word lists does not motivate students to actively communicate in the target language.

Criticism of the term

The overall concept of grammar-translationhas been criticized due to a lack of verifiable sources that supported the existence of such a method in the nineteenth century, or earlier.

Principles and goals

There are two main goals to grammar–translation classes. One is to develop students' reading ability to a level where they can read literature in the target language. The other is to develop students' general mental discipline. The users of foreign language wanted simply to note things of their interest in the literature of foreign languages. Therefore, this method focuses on reading and writing and has developed techniques which facilitate more or less the learning of reading and writing only. As a result, speaking and listening are overlooked.

Method

Grammar–translation classes are usually conducted in the students' native language. Grammar rules are learned deductively; students learn grammar rules by rote, and then practice the rules by doing grammar drills and translating sentences to and from the target language. More attention is paid to the form of the sentences being translated than to their content. When students reach more advanced levels of achievement, they may translate entire texts from the target language. Tests often consist of the translation of classical texts.

There is not usually any listening or speaking practice, and very little attention is placed on pronunciation or any communicative aspectsof the language. The skill exercised is reading, and then only in the context of translation.

Materials

The mainstay of classroom materials for the grammar–translation method is the textbook. Textbooks in the 19th century attempted to codify the grammar of the target language into discrete rules for students to learn and memorize. A chapter in a typical grammar–translation textbook would begin with a bilingual vocabulary list, after which there would be grammar rules for students to study and sentences for them to translate. Some typical sentences from 19th-century textbooks are as follows:

The philosopher pulled the lower jaw of the hen.

My sons have bought the mirrors of the Duke.

The cat of my aunt is more treacherous than the dog of your uncle.

Reception

The method by definition has a very limited scope. Because speaking or any kind of spontaneous creative output was missing from the curriculum, students would often fail at speaking or even letter writing in the target language . A noteworthy quote describing the effect of this method comes from Bahlsen, who was a student of Plötz, a major proponent of this method in the 19th century. In commenting about writing letters or speaking he said he would be overcome with "a veritable forest of paragraphs, and an impenetrable thicket of grammatical rules".

According to Richards and Rodgers, the grammar–translation has been rejected as a legitimate language teaching method by modern scholars:

[T]hough it may be true to say that the Grammar-Translation Method is still widely practiced, it has no advocates. It is a method for which there is no theory. There is no literature that offers a rationale or justification for it or that attempts to relate it to issues in linguistics, psychology, or educational theory.

Influence

The grammar–translation method was the standard way languages were taught in schools from the 17th to the 19th century. Despite attempts at reform from Roger Ascham, Montaigne, Comenius and John Locke, no other methods gained any significant popularity during this time.

Later, theorists such as Viëtor, Passy, Berlitz, and Jespersen began to talk about what a new kind of foreign language instruction needed, shedding light on what the grammar–translation was missing. They supported teaching the language, not about the language, and teaching in the target language, emphasizing speech as well as text. Through grammar–translation, students lacked an active role in the classroom, often correcting their own work and strictly following the textbook.

Despite all of these drawbacks, the grammar–translation method is still the most used method all over the world in language teaching. This is not surprising as most language proficiency books and tests are in the format of grammar–translation method; and hence the use of the method continues

At the height of the Communicative Approach to language learning in the 1980s and early 1990s it became fashionable in some quarters to deride so-called "old-fashioned" methods and, in particular, something broadly labelled "Grammar Translation". There were numerous reasons for this but principally it was felt that translation itself was an academic exercise rather than one which would actually help learners to use language, and an overt focus on grammar was to learn about the target language rather than to learn it.

As with many other methods and approaches, Grammar Translation tended to be referred to in the past tense as if it no longer existed and had died out to be replaced world-wide by the fun and motivation of the communicative classroom. If we examine the principal features of Grammar Translation, however, we will see that not only has it not disappeared but that many of its characteristics have been central to language teaching throughout the ages and are still valid today.

The Grammar Translation method embraces a wide range of approaches but, broadly speaking, foreign language study is seen as a mental discipline, the goal of which may be to read literature in its original form or simply to be a form of intellectual development. The basic approach is to analyze and study the grammatical rules of the language, usually in an order roughly matching the traditional order of the grammar of Latin, and then to practise manipulating grammatical structures through the means of translation both into and from the mother tongue.

The method is very much based on the written word and texts are widely in evidence. A typical approach would be to present the rules of a particular item of grammar, illustrate its use by including the item several times in a text, and practise using the item through writing sentences and translating it into the mother tongue. The text is often accompanied by a vocabulary list consisting of new lexical items used in the text together with the mother tongue translation. Accurate use of language items is central to this approach.

Generally speaking, the medium of instruction is the mother tongue, which is used to explain conceptual problems and to discuss the use of a particular grammatical structure. It all sounds rather dull but it can be argued that the Grammar Translation method has over the years had a remarkable success. Millions of people have successfully learnt foreign languages to a high degree of proficiency and, in numerous cases, without any contact whatsoever with native speakers of the language (as was the case in the former Soviet Union, for example).

There are certain types of learner who respond very positively to a grammatical syllabus as it can give them both a set of clear objectives and a clear sense of achievement. Other learners need the security of the mother tongue and the opportunity to relate grammatical structures to mother tongue equivalents. Above all, this type of approach can give learners a basic foundation upon which they can then build their communicative skills.

Applied wholesale of course, it can also be boring for many learners and a quick look at foreign language course books from the 1950s and 1960s, for example, will soon reveal the non-communicative nature of the language used. Using the more enlightened principles of the Communicative Approach, however, and combining these with the systematic approach of Grammar Translation, may well be the perfect combination for many learners. On the one hand they have motivating communicative activities that help to promote their fluency and, on the other, they gradually acquire a sound and accurate basis in the grammar of the language. This combined approach is reflected in many of the EFL course books currently being published and, amongst other things, suggests that the Grammar Translation method, far from being dead, is very much alive and kicking as we enter the 21st century.

Without a sound knowledge of the grammatical basis of the language it can be argued that the learner is in possession of nothing more than a selection of communicative phrases which are perfectly adequate for basic communication but which will be found wanting when the learner is required to perform any akind of sophisticated linguistic task.