GRAMMAR SEQUENCING IN BASIC ESL

_______________

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

San Diego State University

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Linguistics

_______________

by

Gina Michelle Feike

Spring 2011

iii

Copyright © 2011

by

Gina Michelle Feike

All Rights Reserved

iv

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Grammar Sequencing in Basic ESL by

Gina Michelle Feike Master of Arts in Linguistics

San Diego State University, 2011

This thesis examines Dr. Zev bar-Lev’s unconventional sequence of grammar rules based on Sheltered Initiation Language Learning (SILL) in comparison to other common sequences of grammar rules found in basic ESL textbooks. Rationale for the various sequences based on previous research in second language acquisition (SLA) is discussed for each sequence.

Previous research in SLA reveals contradictory theories of sequencing, e.g. Pienemann’s processability theory and Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input. While processability theory suggests that the sequence of grammar instruction should be based on the level of L2 learners’ readiness, Krashen discourages explicit instruction altogether, stating that L2 learners will learn the language merely with input that is just above their proficiency level (i+1). Other theories are discussed in order to pinpoint the motivation behind selecting a particular sequence of grammar instruction over another. The analysis suggests that the mainstream sequences seem to be based on first language natural order of English morphemes as well as in order easy to difficult.

Ultimately, we can conclude that sequencing of grammar, while not the only factor of successful teaching or even successful presentation, is a factor worth paying more attention to than the field currently does. The investigation reveals that incrementation – presenting fewer rather than more steps at one time or in a single lesson – is a crucial strategy to prevent fossilization and information overload among language learners. Moreover, this analysis calls attention to the new and unique SILL sequence of teaching grammar. Finally, this study demonstrates the significance of teaching grammar rules in the order from easy to difficult. While other textbooks use a milder form of this principle, SILL takes in to an extreme.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...............1 

Theoretical Background ...........................................................................................3 

Sheltered Initiation Language Learning (SILL) ......................................................3 

Teaching in Order of Difficulty ...............................................................................5 

Processability Theory...............................................................................................6 

Natural Order of Morpheme Acquisition .................................................................9 

Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................12 

2 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................13 

3 ANALYSIS OF SEQUENCES...................................................................................16 

The Verb To Be (Is, Am, Are) ...............................................................................17 

Simple Present .......................................................................................................21 

Plural and Singular Nouns .....................................................................................24 

A, An, The, and 0 (Null, Zero, No Article) ...........................................................25 

Demonstrative Pronouns – This, That, These, Those ............................................28 

Auxiliary Do ..........................................................................................................29 

4 CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................31 

vi

Conclusion .............................................................................................................31 

Pedagogical Implications .......................................................................................33 

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................36

APPENDICES

A ORDER OF ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH MORPHEMES IN MAJOR L1 AND L2 STUDIES ......................................................................................................39 

B SEQUENCES OF GRAMMAR RULES.....................................................................41 

vii

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Assessment Results in Rank Order on the Basis of the Total Score ............................6 

Table 2. Textbooks Analyzed and Discussed ..........................................................................14 

Table 3. Sequences of Grammar Points Compared .................................................................17 

Table A.1. Order of Acquisition of English Morphemes in Major L1 and L2 Studies ...........40 

Table B.1. Sequences of Grammar Rules ................................................................................42 

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to first acknowledge Dr. Zev bar-Lev for his encouragement, support,

and presence throughout this process and for allowing me to gain so much knowledge of

SLA and grammar sequencing. I would also like to thank Dr.Ghada Osman, Dr. Eniko

Csomay and Dr. Phillip Serrato for their support in reviewing this paper.

It is with much love that I extend gratitude towards my whole family who has always

supported every decision I have made and have had constant confidence in me. Their

warmth and positive energy has greatly helped me to be where I am today.

Lastly, I would also like to thank my intelligent, fun and strong friends in the

linguistics department for all of the walks and talks.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Curriculum developers and textbook writers for learners of English as a Second

Language (ESL) sometimes run into difficulties with what to include in textbook units and in

which order grammar items and vocabulary words should be presented. Most second

language (L2) English instructors will agree that the sequence of the presentation as well as

the presentation itself is especially important for beginning level English learners to acquire

fluency and avoid fossilization of basic grammar errors. Although it is normal for L2

learners and children learning their first language (L1) to initially make mistakes, the

sequence of basic grammar rules could be slightly altered in order to help prevent

intermediate students from making beginner mistakes with basic grammar skills. Mistakes

with the copula be forms, such as, *You was late or *You is nice as well as the mistake of

deleting the auxiliary be as in*I winning the game are examples of habitual errors that are

made my intermediate and sometimes even advanced L2 English learners. Even though the

process and the sequence of learning a second language seem to be different than that of a

first language, not much research has been found on the learning outcomes or the importance

of the actual order or sequence of L2 English grammar points.

Ideal strategies and methods of L2 English grammar instruction vary among

researchers in the field of applied linguistics. Some researchers, such as Krashen, argue that

grammar does not need to be explicitly taught to L2 learners. Their reason is that acquisition

2

happens naturally with sufficient comprehensible input, as it does in first language

acquisition. In contrast, other researchers have argued, and many classroom teachers agree,

that explicit form-focused and communicative grammar instruction helps students accurately

acquire the language at a faster rate because L2 acquisition differs from first language (L1)

acquisition. According to Swan (as cited in Scheffler, 2009), for example, in order to acquire

L2 rules, learners need to go through an initial stage in which they consciously focus on the

formal features of the language, often times comparing them to their native language. As

learners become more advanced, communicative tasks then take over as the main focus in the

classroom.

Although Krashen contends that L1and L2 acquisition happens in a parallel order,

most SLA research has shown that L2 acquisition is a different process than L1 acquisition

for several reasons: (1) L1 influences – hindrances as well as support –, (2) grammar

knowledge, (3) higher cognitive abilities, (4) learning styles, (5) age, and (6) motivation.

“The fundamental difference between adult L2 learners and child L1 acquirers is that the

former possess a powerful problem solving mechanism, which they use consciously to deal

with complex systems” (Scheffler, 2009, p. 5). Curriculum developers and instructors need

to recognize the value of these differences so they can maximize student learning in the L2

classroom. More specifically, learners may benefit from a sequence of topics and rules

designed exclusively for English L2 learners instead of learning in the order in which L1

English is acquired. The similarities and differences between the orders are discussed further

in this section.

3

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The purpose of this review is to discuss the theories that have most likely contributed

to the sequence of L2 English grammar instruction in textbooks and classrooms. The

evidence in this analysis contributes to the most current literature examining the pedagogical

implications associated with the various sequences of basic English grammar points. Most

specifically, this research is concerned with highlighting Dr. Zev bar-Lev’s (1993) method of

Sheltered Initiation Language Learning (SILL) as a unique and useful way to sequence basic

ESL grammar. Furthermore, this study examines the possible ways that language acquisition

is effected by sequencing, including the problems that may arise if grammar points are not

learned in an ideal order. The discussion will include an overview of the SILL method in

general as well as SILL’s main sequencing strategies. There will be a discussion about the

on teaching in order of difficulty and focuses on the characteristics of grammar rules that

contribute to the measurement of complexity. Finally, there will be a review of the

Processability Theory as well as natural order of morpheme acquisition.

SHELTERED INITIATION LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL)

The main principles of the SILL method, created by Dr. bar-Lev (1993), are: (1)

students first learn to combine words as they learn them, forming their own sentences, rather

than memorizing or practicing textbook dialogues. (2) Grammatical inflection is not

introduced until after the initial pre-language stage. (3) Grammatical inflection is introduced

asymmetrically, i.e. one category/form at a time (more discussion in Chapter 3).

Comprehension skills of skip-reading and “skip-listening” are taught with special exercises

(bar-Lev, 1993).

4

One way that SILL is unconventional is that it presents words in word lists rather than

in context. The only context provided is one sample sentence for each group of four to six

words. After a list of about twenty-five vocabulary words are studied and practiced. Next, a

simple speaking pattern of about five words is introduced using the theme of the unit and a

word from the vocabulary list. An example of a pattern is to name a time and offer someone

something – It is 12 o’clock. Coffee? Students are expected to give different times and offer

something else from the list; for example, It’s 9 o’clock. Tea? Another speaking pattern in

the SILLy booklet is to tell someone how to be, then tell how you are, for example, Be

healthy! I am healthy and Do not be sad. I am not sad. Students practice affirmative and

negative statements with be and personality adjectives. It is a method that turns vocabulary

learning directly into speaking ability by having the students practice creating and producing

sentences using the specified pattern and only the words in the word lists. This can help

students create a number of sentences by themselves, building their inventiveness and

boosting confidence as language learners. The more successful a student feels the more

motivated they are to speak, thereby improving their fluency. SILL is not a method that

denies automatic learning through comprehensible input, but recognizes the fact that without

explicit instruction, there is a chance that students will produce inaccurate language. SILL

strategically sequences and increments the grammar items so that language inaccuracy will

ultimately be avoided. For example, in a Hebrew class taught with SILL, the two gender

endings are deliberately separated and are in two different levels of the curriculum instead of

the more typical sequence of gender being presented at the same time (bar-Lev, 1996).

5

TEACHING IN ORDER OF DIFFICULTY

According to DeKeyser (2005) there are at least three factors involved in determining

the level of grammar rule difficulty: complexity of form, complexity of meaning, and

complexity of the form-meaning relationship. Part of what determines whether a structure is

clear or “easy” is the degree of importance of a linguistic form for the meaning it expresses:

“Certain morphemes are the one and only clue to the meaning they express; others are largely

or completely redundant because they mark grammatical agreement with meanings whose

primary representations are somewhere else in the sentence or discourse” (DeKeyser, 2005,

p. 3). Moreover, VanPatten (1990) has emphasized the distinction between meaningful and

redundant morphology or grammar for predicting what will be easy or hard to acquire,

especially in early stages of L2 development.

Rule difficulty can depend on learners’ language learning aptitude and analytical

abilities. It is also related to learners’ perceptions of how difficult a given rule is. In

deciding which types of rules are a priority to teach, Scheffler (2009) studied the perspectives

of two groups of 50 L1 Polish advanced L2 English language students. A questionnaire was

administered to determine which grammar items learners considered difficult (Group A) as

well as which grammar items they found useful to be taught (Group B).

Students were asked to rank the level of difficulty of each rule on a scale from 1 to 5:

1 very easy; 2 easy; 3 moderate; 4 difficult; very difficult. As for usefulness of instruction,

the levels on the scale were designated as follows: 1 not useful at all; 2 of little use; 3

moderately useful; 4 useful; 5 very useful. The total score out of 250 (50 students x 5) and

the average score were calculated to determine whether there was an overlap between the

judgments of rule difficulty and usefulness of instruction. The results in Table 1 indicate that

6

Table 1. Assessment Results in Rank Order on the Basis of the Total Score

Group A level of difficulty

Total score

Average score

Group B usefulness of Instruction

Total score

Average score

1. tenses 2. prepositions 3. -ing forms and infinitives 4. modal verbs 5. conditional sentences 6. reported speech 7. passive voice 8. articles 9. nouns 10. pronouns 11. adjectives and adverbs

177.5 166 164.5 154.5 151 149.5 147 141.5 119.5 111 100.5

3.5 3.3 3.3 3.1 3 3 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.2 2

1. tenses 2. modal verbs 3. conditional sentences 4. passive voice 5. reported speech 6. -ing forms and infinitives 7. prepositions 8. articles 9. nouns 10. adjectives and adverbs 11. pronouns

232.5 215.5 212 209.5 195.5 182 180 176 171.5 169.5 159.5

4.6 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.2

Source: Scheffler, P. (2009). Rule difficulty and the usefulness of instruction. ELT Journal, 63(1), 5-12.

there is some overlap between Group A and Group B. For example, tenses, modal verbs, and

conditional sentences were in the top five in both lists; pronouns, adjectives and adverbs,

nouns, and articles were considered the least difficult and least useful in the classroom. The

results of this study are very likely to change depending on the students’ L1 and language

proficiency. However, we can make a generalized conclusion that more instruction is

necessary for the more difficult grammar rules.

PROCESSABILITY THEORY

Pienemann’s (1998) Processability Theory (PT) is gives us an explanation of the

reasons why some grammar rules are easier than others. PT states that “at any stage of

second language development, the learner can produce and comprehend only those linguistic

forms that the current state of the language processor can handle” (Pienemann, 2007, p. 137).

There are “psycholinguistic constraints” which control whether learners can acquire specific

7

grammatical rules through instruction. Formal instruction may be successful if the learners

have reached a stage in the developmental sequence that allows them to process the target

structure (Pienemann, 1984). Conversely, it will not succeed if learners have not reached the

requisite developmental stage. According to Pienemann (2007), “the Processability hierarchy

is based on the idea of transfer of grammatical information within and between the phrases of

a sentence” (p. 139). An overview of the original Processability hierarchy is as follows

(Pienemann, 2007, p. 140).

1. No procedure (e.g., producing a simple word such as ‘yes’)

2. Category procedure (e.g., adding a past-tense morpheme to a verb)

3. Noun phrase procedure (e.g., matching plurality as in “two kids”)

4. Verb phrase procedure (e.g., moving an adverb out of the verb phrase to the front of a sentence “I went yesterday/yesterday I went.”)

5. Sentence procedure (e.g., subject-verb agreement)

6. Subordinate clause procedure (e.g., use of subjunctive in subordinate clauses triggered by information in a main clause).

Basically, according to PT, learners develop their grammatical ability following the

hierarchy because: (1) The hierarchy is ordered in a way that every procedure must occur or

be experienced in order for the next procedure to occur. (2) The hierarchy “mirrors the time-

course in language generation” (Pienemann, 2007, p. 141). Based on Pienemann and

Johnston (1987) the proposed developmental sequence for the acquisition of basic questions

is as follows (three stages):

Stage 1: Single units – words and units – What? What is your name? (memorized formulas)

Stage 2: SVO – Canonical word order with question intonation – It’s a monster? Your cat is black? You have a cat? I draw a house here?

8

Stage 3: Fronting (wh- word / do) – Direct questions with main verbs and some form of fronting – Where the cats are? What the cat doing? Do you have an animal?

Pienemann (1984) argues that stages in this developmental sequence cannot be

skipped even as a result of instruction. Pienemann's first experimental study tested the

prediction that only the learners who are developmentally "ready" to learn a structure (in this

case, inversion) can learn it through formal instruction, while those who are not ready will

not learn it, even if they are exposed to the same instruction. The study is based on pretests

and posttests for five Italian children learning German as a second language. Around twenty

hours of naturalistic conversational data confirmed Pienemann's hypotheses: The two

learners whose interlanguage – developing L2 – had reached the stage immediately preceding

inversion did learn it, while the three whose interlanguage was at an earlier stage did not

(Lightbown & Pienemann, 1993). Pienemann also tested his hypothesis with learners of

different ages and in different learning environments – both informal and instructed. He

found again that instruction was most effective for students whose level was just behind the

level being instructed (Lightbown, 2000), which is in accordance with Krashen’s theory of

providing students with input that is just above their proficiency level (i+1).

In contradiction to PT, however, Spada and Lightbown’s (1999) study found that

English language learners who were at an early stage in the acquisition of question forms

were able to learn question forms at an advanced stage as a result of formal instruction,

suggesting they were not constrained by the kind of psycholinguistic constraints, such as

word access and working memory, on acquisition proposed by Pienemann. Spada and

Lightbown suggest that the effectiveness of instruction may depend less on the learners’

stage of development than on the type of instruction (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002).

9

NATURAL ORDER OF MORPHEME ACQUISITION

The order of acquisition for first and second languages is similar, but not identical

(see Appendix A). It has been established, for example, that the –ing marker in English, the

progressive, is acquired fairly early in first-language acquisition, while the third person

singular –s is acquired later; up to 6 to 12 months later after –ing (Krashen, 2003). Krashen

states that the third person singular in adult second-language learners may never be acquired.

According to Krashen, the natural order is not based on a grammar item being simple or

complex. As mentioned earlier, rules that seem simple (e.g., the third person singular) are

acquired late; others that appear complex are acquired early, presenting sequencing problems

for textbook writers. Krashen doesn’t believe, however, that the teaching order should be the

same as the acquisition order. Instead, he believes that with enough comprehensible input,

such as reading books or listening to native speakers, students will naturally acquire the

language in the natural order.

Lightbown and Pienemann (1993), on the other hand, argue that “while

comprehensible input is an essential part of the learning environment, it will not always be

sufficient to bring about developmental change or increased accuracy, even when learners are

in supportive environments” (p. 718). As cited in Lightbown (2000), many other published

studies show that instruction can speed up the acquisition of learners in certain structures, but

that the sequence of acquisition is not changed by the instruction.

Kwon (2005) reviewed the history of L1 and L2 natural order research and concluded

that regardless of the differing methodology of the studies, the orders of L1 and L2

acquisition are very similar. Although L2 studies have been done using subjects of different

age, L1 background, and a variety of learning environments, the findings throughout the

10

studies have been consistent. The natural order studies have created controversy, however,

due to the choice of instruments or methods, the focus of grammatical functors being too

small and too trivial to be a basis for conclusions, morphemes with different meanings being

grouped as a single grammatical structure, individual data being obscured by group data, and

accuracy order not being able to be equated with acquisition order (Kwon, 2005).

Without including criticisms, Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) did a meta-

analysis on 25 years’ worth of research on the natural order of English morpheme acquisition

by English language learners. They aimed to discover the cause of the hypothesized natural

order by reviewing accuracy scores of several studies and comparing them to 5 determinants,

which no other study had done. The following 5 determinants studied were: (1) perceptual

salience – how easy it is to hear or perceive a given structure, (2) semantic complexity – a

measure of how many meanings are conveyed by one particular form,

(3) morphophonological regularity – the degree to which the functors (grammatical

morphemes, such as –ed) are or are not affected by their phonological environment,

(4) syntactic category – lexical or functional and free or bound, and (5) frequency – the

number of times that a given structure occurs in speech addressed to the learner

(Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001).

The results revealed that a combination of all 5 determinants accounted for the

accuracy scores for grammatical functors and that these determinants seem to have

something in common; they all constitute aspects of salience – phonological, morphological,

syntactic, semantic and numeric salience – that facilitate the acquisition of grammatical

structure from the input. This multiple-determinant approach to accounting for the large

11

inconsistency in the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes in English is the most

realistic and probable path for the future of natural order studies.

Hernandez (2000) compared the sequence of units in two ESL textbooks –

Interchange I and Grammar Dimensions I – to the morpheme rank order of second language

acquisition (MRO) provided by Dulay and Burt (1974) and found several striking

differences. Neither Interchange I nor Grammar Dimensions I follows the same order

proposed by Dulay and Burt. The MRO shows that subject and object pronouns (he – him)

are acquired at the same time while both textbooks present them in separate units –

introducing subject pronouns in the first unit and object pronouns three units later. Another

difference found was the acquisition order of plural forms. According to MRO, English

language learners learn –s (cars, books) form first, and later –es (watches, dishes) is learned,

however, in both ESL textbooks, both –s and –es are presented in the same unit. Other

differences in sequencing were found and will be briefly mentioned in the discussion.

Hernandez’s pedagogical implications were for instructors to follow the morpheme

rank order presented by Dulay and Burt (1974). She concluded that teachers need to

understand that although forms may seem simple, such as the third person singular,

familiarizing themselves with the natural order of morphemes will help avoid feeling

frustrated with students.

In contrast, Lightbown (2000) recognizes that English languages teachers would

naturally feel the need to plan lessons following the developmental sequence, but, in her

opinion, there are practical difficulties, such as the lack of detail on developmental sequence

and the difficulty in determining the levels of individual pupils in each class. She concludes,

12

however, that developmental sequences research can allow teachers to see progress in other

ways besides accuracy alone, e.g. ability to get their point across (Lightbown, 2000).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze and compare the sequence of some main

grammar points in Dr. bar-Lev’s Sheltered Initiated Language Learning (SILL) English

booklets to three mainstream basic ESL textbooks in order to raise awareness of the possible

ideal sequence to teach or learn English grammar rules. As previously mentioned, very little

research has been found on the differences in ordering grammar instruction, the learning

outcomes, or the importance of the actual order or sequence of L2 English grammar points.

Equally as important, however unhelpful in determining the idyllic sequence, most of the

research has been done on second language grammar teaching theory and methodology, for

example, form-focused instruction and communicative language approach. This thesis is a

step in the direction of finding out the significance of sequencing. Included are comments on

the major differences between the sequences and a discussion of the possible rationale based

on various SLA theories – Dr. bar-Lev’s Sheltered Initiated Language Learning (SILL),

teaching in order of difficulty level, processability theory (PT), and natural order hypothesis.

In addition to sorting out the reasoning behind the order in which grammar is found in basic

ESL textbooks, this analysis is a step toward determining what an ideal sequence may be for

students to develop accurate and more permanent language skills.

13

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the methodology used for the analysis in the

current research. Initially, the four textbooks analyzed in this study will be discussed, which

will include a description of the contents, objectives, and approaches. There will also be a

discussion about the main reasons for selecting the particular grammar points to focus on.

This thesis analyzes and discusses the similarities and differences between the

sequences of grammar points in Dr. bar-Lev’s textbook in progress, SILLy English, to three

other basic ESL textbooks shown in Table 2. Betty Azar’s book, Basic English Grammar

(2000), is used as a textbook, a reference book and supplement material for ESL instructors

around the globe, and it can also be used as a self-study book for English language learners.

Because of this book’s success, many grammar book authors have duplicated her sequence as

well as her front cover in hopes of being just as successful. Each lesson starts with a

presentation of the grammar point in the form of a chart, followed by examples of contexts in

which the grammar is found, and finally, practice exercises: fill in the blanks, rewrite the

sentences, and circle-the-best-answer drills.

Touchstone 1 (2005) is a textbook that is currently used in beginning conversation

classes at the English Language Institute at University of California at San Diego. This book

includes exercises and activities that aim to improve learners’ speaking, listening, reading,

writing, vocabulary, and grammatical accuracy skills. Each lesson has a different theme and

begins with photos having to do with the theme along with questions for the students to

14

Table 2. Textbooks Analyzed and Discussed

Title Author Year Number of Units

Basic English Grammar

Azar, B. 2000 16

Touchstone 1 McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H.

2005 12

Stand Out 1 Kenkins, R. & Johnson, S. 2002 8

SILLy bar-Lev, Zev not yet published

10

activate schema. There are sample dialogues with text analysis type exercises,

comprehension questions, grammar charts, practice drills, speaking tasks, listening

comprehension tasks, and reading and writing tasks. Each unit has a number of

communicative activities that permit students to practice the language in various contexts.

Stand Out 1 (2002) has been used in an English as a second language class for adults

at Vista Adult School in San Diego County. The textbook includes thematic units and

exercises geared toward communicative skills, but unlike Touchstone 1 (2005), Stand Out 1

(2002) offers a separate grammar workbook, which focuses solely on grammar and is bought

separately. It includes grammar items presented in the main textbook as well as additional

items. Each lesson has grammar charts, example sentences and contexts, and of course drills.

SILLy I is a set of booklets with activities designed by Dr. Zev bar-Lev at San Diego

State University and is based on the Sheltered Initiation Language Learning (SILL) method

that are geared towards true beginners. The SILLy booklets are currently being written for

beginner ESL students in China. The booklets are mostly focused on speaking, but do

include some reading and writing activities. Unique to the SILLy booklets, there are

shouting activities that prompt students to shout words and sentences. Dr. bar-Lev believes

15

that when words and phrases are shouted, students’ confidence increases while their

inhibitions and fear of speaking in another language deteriorate.

The lessons are divided into sections that focus on a selected theme, word list and

grammar item. For example, in booklet 1C, students are presented with a list of vocabulary

words with matching pictures (computer generated images) followed by a pattern in which

students use as a model to make other sentences.

Each of the textbooks in this analysis has a different number of units and varies in

length, topic, and format. For this analysis, the four textbook sequences were divided into

four parts so that comparing the similarities and differences could be highlighted, shown in

Appendix B. The grammar points were chosen to be organized in this way so that the

differences in the sequences would be clear. The analysis of the sequences focuses on the

grammar items that were unique to Dr. bar-Lev’s SILL order compared with the other

textbooks. There are some similarities between SILL and the other textbooks that are

pointed out. The grammar items discussed are the verb to be, simple present, plural and

singular nouns, articles a, an, the and zero, this that these and those, and the auxiliary do.

Included in each grammar point analysis is information on the level of complexity, reasons

for common mistakes that English language learners (ELLs), as well as rationale behind

where it is positioned in the textbooks’ sequence.

16

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF SEQUENCES

As discussed in Chapter 1, the purpose of this study is to explore how and for what

reason the sequences found in ESL textbooks compare. The study investigates the less

common sequence developed by Dr. bar-Lev and highlights some of the benefits of teaching

basic English grammar in the order that he proposes.

The sequences were analyzed and compared to previous studies on L2 morpheme

acquisition to illustrate the differences between the various sequences and the possible

rationale behind them. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that by using the SILL sequence,

common errors are likely to be avoided. Major grammar rules have been selected to illustrate

the various challenges and successes that English language learners could have based on the

order that the grammar is taught.

Research shows that there is a natural order in which acquisition occurs and that it

will happen in the natural order with or without instruction (Gass & Selinker, 2001). In

Table 3, the order of morpheme acquisition among L2 English children observed by Dulay

and Burt (1974) as well as the order among L2 English adults are presented along with the

order presented in the four textbooks that were analyzed in this study.

As seen in Table 3, the sequences of grammar rules in the four textbooks have

noticeable similarities and differences. Separated by grammar topic, my observations and

discussion of rationale include a brief background of the grammar as well as common

17

Table 3. Sequences of Grammar Points Compared

Larsen-Freeman (1975)1

(adults)

Bailey, Madden and

Krashen (1974)2 (adults)

Azar – Basic Grammar3

Touchstone 14 Stand Out5 SILLy

1. progressive 2. copula 3. articles 4. auxiliary 5. short plural 6. reg. past 7. singular 8. past irregular 9. long plural (-es) 10. possessive

1. progressive 2. plural 3. copula be 4. auxiliary 5. article 6. irregular past 7. regular past 8. third person sing 9. possessive

1. copula be 2. third person sing 3. possessive 4. prog (-ing) 5. pronoun case (subj and obj) 6. plural (-s) 7. article (a, the) 8. long plural (-es) 9. regular past 10. irregular past 11. auxiliary (be going)

1. copula be 2. third person sing 3. article (a – the) 4. plural (-s) 5. possessive 6. prog (-ing) 7. pronoun case (subj and obj) 8. regular past 9. long plural (-es)

1. pronouns (subj) 2. copula be 3. 3rd person sing 4. plural 5. long plural 6. possessive 7. articles 8. progressive 9. 3rd person singular and plural forms of be 10. regular past 11. aux be 12. irregular past

1. copula be – I am and you are 2. auxiliary do 3. possessive 4. progressive 5. copula be - is 6. third person sing (does) 7. irregular plural 8. regular past (did) 9. articles

1 Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409-419. 2 Bailey, K., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 24, 235-243. 3 Azar, B. (2000). Basic English Grammar. White Plains, NY: Longman. 4 McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2005). Touchstone 1. New York, NY: Cambridge. 5 Kenkins, R., & Johnson, S. (2002). Stand Out 1: Standards-Based English. Boston, MA: Heinle.

difficulties that L2 English learners may face during acquisition of the grammar. See

Appendix B for a more detailed comparison of the textbook sequences.

THE VERB TO BE (IS, AM, ARE)

To be is the most common verb in the English language as well as one of the most

difficult for low level L2 English learners to master. It has more distinct forms with respect

to person, number, and tense than any other verb in English. It has three present tense and

two past tense forms whereas a verb like walk has two present-tense forms and one past tense

form. Another reason that it is difficult is because it can be followed by adjectives, noun

18

phrases and adverbial prepositional phrases, e.g., Rod is handsome, Rod is a tennis player,

and Rod is in San Diego. One of the most common mistakes that L2 English learners make

is totally omitting the copula be because of the absence of it in their L1. For example, in

Russian, the present tense copula is absent: ona studentka / krasivaya / doma = she student /

beautiful / at home = She is a beautiful / student / at home. It is particularly difficult for L1

Chinese speakers because a different form is required depending on what be is followed by,

e.g., shi before a noun, zai before a place, and zero with adjectives & verbs. Another

common problem, of course, is using the wrong form (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman,

1999).

Regardless of its high level of complexity, since to be is the most common English

verb, it is the first verb that English language learners are introduced to in most English

textbooks and English classrooms. This seems like a relatively good choice according to L2

morpheme acquisition order research; it is either the second or third morpheme acquired. In

addition, Pienemann’s Processability Theory may suggest that learners are not cognitively

ready to learn all of the forms and uses of to be, however to simplify the level of complexity,

the forms of to be could be taught in separate lessons. Proving the complexity of the verb to

be, studies of the natural order of English morphemes (Appendix A) show the copula be is

most commonly the second acquired morpheme just after the progressive. In one study

(Bailey et al., 1974) it came after plural and in another, after articles (Rosansky, 1976), which

is considerably different in comparison with the sequences in the textbooks that are used in

this research, which present to be in the beginning perhaps because of its high frequency in

the English language. Although to be is determined to be complex, some research shows that

19

with extensive instruction students can acquire a more complex rule even in early stages of

acquisition (Spada & Lightbown, 1999).

In the first part of Azar’s Basic English Grammar (2000), the 1st person, 2nd person,

and 3rd person of the verb to be are the first grammar structures presented, followed by they

are and we are, and negative I am not happy. It is and they/we are are presented with

singular and plural nouns, e.g. city, cities, bus, buses. Students are supposed to do two things

at once: write the –s if necessary as well as figure out which verb form to use for each noun.

After the practice exercises on statements, yes/no questions using to be are presented, i.e. Are

you…? After that, the verb have is presented, e.g., I have a pen.

As in Azar’s book, Touchstone 1 (2005) also presents to be in statements

immediately, however, only focuses on the 1st and 2nd person – am, am not, are, are not –

similar to SILL. In my opinion, this is a better alternative to teaching all of the forms

because of the lower level of complexity and the readiness stage of the learners, which are

discussed above in the introduction. After yes/no questions and what questions with am and

are are presented and practiced, is is presented followed by yes/no questions using is.

Separating is from am and are gives learners more of an opportunity to master two forms of

be instead of three. That is, students have to remember am and are in one lesson and in one

context; they learn am and are with first names and class subjects and they learn is with

location, e.g. Laura is at work. Having students associate fewer forms with one topic may

help learners remember and produce the forms of be more accurately.

In Stand Out 1 (2002), subject pronouns are the very first item that is presented –

possibly because they are the first morphemes in L1 acquisition, but are quickly followed by

am, is and are, like in Azar’s (2000) book. After affirmative statements, negative statement

20

with am, is and are are presented, followed by possessive pronouns (my, your, her, etc.) then

information questions using am, is and are, e.g., Where are you from? and Who is she? In

this textbook, information questions seem to be presented earlier than the other books, which

may be too soon since learners are most likely not equipped with enough vocabulary or

grammar to produce accurate and varied wh- questions. And even though Krashen would

state that students acquire language with exposure to various grammar patterns through

comprehensible input, instructional time should be spent on grammar rules that they are

ready for, i.e. Krashen’s i+1. It is reasonable to suspect that beginner ESL students will not

be able to get through a grammar lesson that presents wh- words, what + noun and how +

adjective questions in the same lesson. It might even be pointless. Such an immense amount

of grammatical difficulties in one lesson would interrupt any reasonable notion of

sequencing. A better alternative would be to divide the three, for example, into three

separate lessons giving the students sufficient time and attention to have an impact on their

learning.

Similar to the first part of the Touchstone 1 (2005) sequence, SILLy separates I am

and you are from each other by a single lesson, but defers it is for a number of lessons, and

he/she is by whole booklets. He/she/it is is presented after negative statements with am/are

in present progressive, e.g., I am singing, You are laughing and even after the auxiliary do

with 1st and 2nd person verbs, e.g., I do have a pen and You do go to the store along with past

tense, and future tense. In SILLy, immediately following he/she is is the 3rd person do,

without other regular verbs with a –s ending. The –s ending (even on does) is deferred for a

later booklet so learners get fluent with I, you + verb, and then with plural irregular nouns +

verb, with –s coming even later. Again, focusing on fewer forms at a time in different

21

contexts from other forms may help the students’ attain the information for a longer period of

time. bar-Lev (1996) explains one of the features of SILL is separating different contrasting

forms “to maximize the different associations for them as separate” (p. 33). In this case,

students will associate am and are with something separate from is, making each form more

memorable. In this sense, SILL is the only one conforming to the natural order, in which –s

is acquired late.

Paradigmatic sequencing means presenting contrasting forms together, at the same

time, e.g. singular and plural, or the and a at the same time. Most textbooks present am, is

and are together – in paradigmatic sequencing; SILLy presents am first, then are in two

lessons later, and is much later – asymmetric sequencing. bar-Lev (1993) describes

asymmetric sequencing as consistent with the goal of incrementation. It uses the notion of

“markedness” by teaching the less marked forms (more dominant) first and the more marked

forms later and as “special”. For example, in a beginning L2 Spanish class, teaching viene

(he comes) first and vengo (I come) later bar-Lev has found through non-controlled

observations that asymmetric sequencing helps promote fluency and accuracy among L2

learners.

SIMPLE PRESENT

The simple present form in English is not always so simple for ESL students. Aside

from challenges with the irregular verb simple present forms, such as be/am/is/are, do/does,

and have/has, the number agreement between the subject and very poses a problem where the

third person singular form are explicitly inflected while other forms are not. Typical errors

include leaving the inflection off altogether, e.g., *Bob teach here and overgeneralizing the

inflection and applying it to uninflected forms, such as modal auxiliaries, e.g., *Tash cans

22

dance and *Tash can dances. Another likely error is overusing the inflection as an

agreement marker with subjects of inappropriate person and/or number, e.g., *I/They/You

goes and interpreting it as a plural marker as in *The dogs eats.

In Betty Azar’s Basic English Grammar (2000), the second verb that is presented and

practiced is simple present have with subject pronouns and nouns as the subjects. This

includes both forms – have and has – and is practiced alongside the verb be so that students

are exposed to when to use have and when to use be. For example, they have to choose have

or be in incomplete sentences such as, _____ in the city, ____ a new kitchen, ____

expensive. The simple present is further explained using regular verbs, which is found after

the exercises with have and be, possessive adjectives, this, that, these, those, and who and

what. Learners are asked to practice verbs with –s, -es, and -ies endings, e.g., eats, catches,

studies in the same lesson. After 16 practice exercises, the simple present with irregular

verbs is introduced – has, does, and goes and then are combined with regular verbs so that

students can practice deciding which verb to use in context as well as which form. Just as the

very beginning of Azar’s book, there is a lot being presented at once. I can see how this

would be overwhelming for students because it may be somewhat of an information

overload. It would be up to the teacher or tutor to break it down and make these exercises

meaningful.

In Touchstone 1 (2005), the simple present is introduced after information questions

with the verb to be. First, short statements are presented e.g., I like candy and Bob wants tea.

Then, simple present negative with don’t and doesn’t e.g., I don’t like toast and Bob doesn’t

want jam then simple present yes/no questions, such as Do you like the beach?, followed by

negative be (discussed above) and simple present information questions. This simple present

23

sequence is very similar to the to be sequence earlier in the textbook: statements, negative,

yes/no questions then information questions, which seems logical, especially according to

Pienemann, in that students can build on what they have already learned.

Stand Out 1’s (2002) sequence of the simple present is slightly different from

Touchstone 1 (2005) and is closer to the sequence found in Azar’s (2000) book. They begin

with the verb have then negative have (don’t have, doesn’t have). After practicing the simple

present affirmative and negative have and has, other regular verbs are introduced with –s and

–es endings, followed by yes/no questions and when and where questions. Including a focus

on the verb have seems reasonable considering it is one of the most common verbs used in

the English language and it is irregular. Familiarizing students with this common irregular

verb early is a good way for students to know what to expect with other irregular verbs as

well as increase metaknowledge of English – for example, knowing what an irregular verb is.

Finally, the auxiliary do that is presented in the first part of SILLy is unique among

the textbooks that I am analyzing; and most likely to many other basic English textbooks

since the auxiliary do is not commonly used in affirmative statements. It is also presented

where we would expect to find it, which is in negative statements, like, I do not like cheese as

well as in yes/no questions, like, Do you play tennis?. Presenting this do with affirmative

statements may help English language learners (ELLs) thoroughly learn the auxiliary to

prevent common mistakes such as: *Did you went?, *I no like cheese, *I not like cheese, and

*You know Barbara?

In English, the –s morpheme is used for plural nouns and for third person singular,

which naturally enough makes things confusing for ELLs who may make mistakes such as

*The cats runs fast or *Boys plays football. So, learning the simple present with do, learners

24

are able to make the observation that the –s ending in third person plural is not used, e.g.,

They do play tennis. This will help them remember that the –s ending that is used for third

person singular is not used for third person plural, although they were see the –s ending on

the subject noun that does represent plural, e.g., Boys play football. That is, it follows the

more intuitive order of less marked forms to more marked forms.

Another more important difference is that in SILLy, they are as well as 3rd person

simple present later than in Touchstone 1 (2005). The 3rd person simple present is presented

right after he/she/it is, which comes after the past and future tense using auxiliaries did and

will.

PLURAL AND SINGULAR NOUNS

Azar’s (2000) book presents singular and plural nouns in the third part of the

sequence way later than the lesson with this, that, these, and those, which are presented alone

as a noun phrase (NP). Regular verbs are introduced first – cat, cats, bottle, bottles – then

they move on to the irregular plural forms (women, people, etc), which immediately follow

regular nouns. The nouns are practiced with a, an, and some as well as adjectives such as

many, much, a few.

Touchstone 1 (2005) introduces plural noun forms in the first part of their sequence

along with this and these. Both regular and irregular nouns are presented in this section.

Plural nouns are continued to be practiced in the following lessons with where questions,

e.g., Where is the child? and Where are the children? and possessive pronouns, e.g., My pen

is blue and His pens are red. The repetition of the various noun forms throughout the lessons

proceeding where it was introduced give students multiple contexts in which singular and

25

plural nouns are used. Many researchers have found that more exposure to a grammar item

leads to long term acquisition.

Singular and plural nouns are introduced in the second part of the Stand Out 1 (2002)

sequence, but like in Touchstone 1 (2005), they are practiced with this, that, these, and those

followed by a lesson with a and an. Shortly after, there + be is presented.

SILLy’s initial use of plural animate nouns is unique. SILLy introduces irregular

plural animate nouns way before singular nouns and determiners. Since indefinite plural

irregular nouns do not need articles, learners follow more of the sequence of L1 language

acquisition, which is to exclude articles, for example, *I want cookie but without the usual

errors, since singular count nouns aren’t taught. The difference, however, is that the irregular

nouns are learned first, such as, women, men, police, people, children, fish, and the common

mistake of putting a plural –s or –es ending onto an irregular noun (womans, fishes, etc.) will

be avoided. The use of the null determiner, that is, nouns without the or a, as primary is

unique. The and a are introduced later. Since irregular plural nouns are morphologically

simpler, they will be easier for Chinese and other learners. In Chinese, for example, the

plural is less marked then singular because it doesn’t require a determiner, e.g., ren by itself

means ‘people’ and yige ren means ‘a person’.

A, AN, THE, AND 0 (NULL, ZERO, NO ARTICLE)

Determiners cause problems for many L2 English learners, especially for the L1

Chinese learners, for example, who often don’t use determiners in their L1. One, an, some,

and a few also cause problems for L1 Portuguese learners who use the same word for one and

an as well as the same word for some and a few.

26

The English article system, which includes the indefinite article a(n), the definite

article the, and the zero (or null) article,1 is one of the most difficult structural elements for

ESL learners. It has often been considered hard grammar, very difficult if not impossible to

teach (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982). Quite a few ESL educators have explored different

approaches and techniques for teaching article usage and examined the effectiveness of such

instruction; others have investigated the process of L2 acquisition of English articles, an issue

that deserves more attention (Liu & Gleason, 2002).

As cited in Liu and Gleason (2002), Parrish (1987) examined the order of acquisition

of the three types of articles, which indicated that the zero article was acquired first, followed

by the definite article, and finally the indefinite article. However, his subjects whose L1 did

not contain an article system overused the zero article and underused a or the. The problems

that advanced learners have with the articles are limited mostly to the overuse of the zero

article, particularly with a clearly identified referent, Master (1997). This overuse of the zero

article and the underuse of the at the advanced stage would suggest that the two articles are

acquired rather late, suggesting that the is perhaps acquired rather late in the ESL

development of the article system.

Azar (2000) presents an, a, some, and the in the third part of the sequence – in unit 7.

The is presented after a and an and some, but it’s still in the same part. Indefinite articles are

included in the lesson on count and noncount nouns and measurements with noncount nouns.

There is a separate lesson following a and an titled a, a and some – all indefinite. The lesson

on the definite article –the comes after the lesson on an, a and some as well as the lesson on

many, much, a few, a little.

27

In the first part of the sequence, Touchstone 1 (2005) presents a, an, and the in the

same lesson – explaining indefinite and definite articles all at once followed by the lesson on

this and these then plural nouns. Having this information presented all at once seems like it

might be confusing for English language learners because rules need individual attention and

practice. Separating the definite and indefinite articles would give students time absorb one

before learning another.

Unique to the other textbooks, the is not focused on anywhere in the Stand Out 1

(2002); only this, that, these, those and a, an are presented. As stated above, a brief lesson

on articles follows shortly after this, that, these, and those, however, the more detailed lesson

on only indefinite articles comes way later in the fourth part of the sequence – in unit 7.

Also unique to the other textbooks, SILLy presents irregular plural nouns (the

animates, people, children, etc.) well before their singulars to avoid any need for the and a.

Some plural inanimates are included earlier, but the nouns that are introduced earlier are

noncount nouns. The and a/an (in part 4) are introduced after this, that, these, those and one.

It’s not widespread theory, however in SILLy, after students are familiar with this, that,

these, and those, SILLy presents the as a “short version” of that, those, this, these and a as a

“short version” of one. Since the demonstrative determiners – that, this, these, those – are

more perceptually and semantically salient, it seems that they are easier for students to learn.

According to Hernandez (2000), ESL students should be taught definite and indefinite

articles as only one morpheme so that they understand there is a close relationship between a

and the. Although there are differences in meaning and use, which would be pointed out and

practiced in class, instructors should not wait until students acquire the indefinite article to

28

present the definite one. Moreover, articles should be taught very early in the language

learning process because of how early they are acquired naturally.

Although articles are frequent in discourse, they are less perceptually salient, meaning

they are difficult to hear and perceive, as well as less semantically salient, meaning they do

not carry semantic meaning, perhaps making them more difficult to acquire.

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS – THIS, THAT, THESE, THOSE

In the first part of the sequence (in unit 2), Azar (2000) presents this and that then

lessons with these and those, e.g., My cat, This cat, and These cats. These items immediately

follow possessive pronouns and are followed by a lesson in asking questions with what and

who + be. What is interesting to me here is the how singular and plural nouns are not

discussed in detail with this, that, these, and those. Instead, Azar’s (2000) book uses singular

and plural nouns even though they are “taught” until much later in the textbook. Also, this,

that, these, and those are presented way before indefinite articles (a, an) and the definite

article (the).

Touchstone 1 (2005) presents only this and these is the first part of the sequence – in

unit 2, yet doesn’t present this, these, that, and those together until unit 8. This and these are

presented with the lessons surrounding plural nouns, which seems logical in my opinion

because we only use this and these with nouns. In Touchstone 1 (2005), this and these are

presented immediately after a, an, and the – which are all found in the same lesson.

Similar to Touchstone 1 (2005), Stand Out 1 (2002) presents this, that, these, and

those with singular and plural nouns in the first part of the sequence – in unit 2. Different

from Touchstone 1 (2005), the definite determiners (this, that, these, those) lesson is situated

29

before the indefinite articles lesson (a and an). A brief lesson on articles follows shortly after

this, that, these, and those, however, the more detailed lesson on only indefinite articles

comes way later in the fourth part of the sequence – in unit 7.

Unlike any of the textbooks, SILLy presents those and these first, before this/that and

the and a/an. This is and that are presented separately along with the singular, but they are

also presented as a pro-NP early on, e.g., This is rice. Most uniquely, the definite article, the,

is presented after that, this, those, these and the indefinite article, a, is, surprisingly,

presented after one. This sequence essentially solves the problem faced by native speakers of

Russian, Chinese, and others who have no articles in their languages because students are

able to understand, practice, and therefore more easily master what they can translate into

their own language first.

AUXILIARY DO

Depending on the L1, the do insertion in English negation and interrogatives can be

even more challenging due to the fact that many languages allow multiple negation in one

sentence, unlike English, e.g., *I don’t see nobody.

An additional problem involves the form of the negative particle. Some languages do not have distinct forms for expressing their equivalents of English not and no. Some have more than two negative particles. Finally, English usually contracts not in speech and in informal writing, which few other languages do with their negative particle. This makes it harder for learners to understand and acquire not than if it were consistently produced as a separate, uncontracted word. (Celce-Marcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 183)

In Russian, there is no auxiliary verb needed to form a question or negation. For

example:

On ne chitaet On chitaet?

He not read-Present-3P he read-Present-3P?

30

He does not read Does he read?

Negative structures appear to follow a particular sequence of development for English

L2 learners. At the start, a negative particle, usually no or not, is placed next to the item it

negates, as in no like or I no like. Pica (2005) stated that “this juxtaposition reflects universal

strategies of communication and grammar management” (p. 8) and is closer to the order that

L1 English acquirers also experience. Those whose L1 negation is consistent with the stage,

for example, L1 Spanish or Italian learners, usually remain there longer than those whose L1

does not encode negation in this way (Pica, 2005).

As mentioned earlier in the simple present section, the auxiliary do that is presented

in the first part of SILLy is unique among the textbooks that I am analyzing and most likely

unique to many other basic English textbooks since the auxiliary do is not commonly used in

affirmative statements. It is also presented where we would expect to find it, which is in

negative statements, such as I do not like cheese and in yes/no questions, such as Do you play

tennis? Presenting this do with affirmative statements may help English language learners

(ELLs) thoroughly learn the auxiliary to prevent common mistakes, such as *Did you went?,

*I no like cheese, *I not like cheese, and *You know Barbara? With so much practice with

the auxiliary do in present affirmative statements, e.g., I do play tennis and past affirmative

statements, e.g., I did go to school affirmative statements, students become more comfortable

with the concept of this “helping verb” that is not found in many other languages. Although

do is not standard in these types of sentences, it is grammatical and it seems easier for

students to remove the do rather than add it on in negation and interrogative sentences.

31

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL

IMPLICATIONS

The primary intention of this study is to investigate the grammar sequence found in

Dr. bar-Lev’s SILLy textbook and to compare it to three mainstream ESL textbooks.

Included in the analysis are the problems that L2 English learners encounter while learning

each grammar point as well as possible sequencing solutions. The analysis also contains

possible rationale for each grammar sequence as well as an ideal sequencing strategies for

basic ESL students based on SLA theories and previous research. The rationale includes

comparisons to research on measuring complexity of forms, Processability Theory, natural

order of morpheme acquisition, and Sheltered Initiation Language Learning.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that all of the textbooks analyzed do not follow the exact same order,

although there were some commonalities. The most significant commonalities are between

the mainstream textbooks – Touchstone 1 (2005), Stand Out 1 (2002), and Azar’s Basic

English Grammar (2000) – and include the instruction of all three simple present forms of

copula be (am, are, is) in the beginning of part one of the textbook, the 3rd person singular

present also in the beginning of part one, and the exclusion of the auxiliary do in affirmative

and simple past tense statements.

32

Additionally, the results from the analysis illustrate the unique and valuable strategies

of the less conventional SILLy sequence in the following ways: (1) Presenting two forms of

the copula be – I am, you are – first, and later the third person – She/he is – will most likely

avoid information overload and increase sustained accuracy by increasing the number of

associations and contexts that the students make. (2) Teaching English learners the auxiliary

do early on with affirmative statements instead of waiting until the negatives and

interrogatives familiarizes learners with the concept of the helping verb and minimizes errors

with auxiliaries. (3) Rather than the 3rd person singular (–s ending) being one of the first

forms taught, postponing the instruction of the 3rd person singular is more in line with the

natural order of morpheme acquisition and would presumably decrease the amount confusion

and overgeneralization of rules while learning English verbs and plural nouns.

The evidence in this study also indicates that although many mainstream textbooks

seem to take an eclectic approach to the order of the grammar rules, providing students with

an appropriate amount of time spent on the more complex rules and giving them

opportunities to make different associations with different forms, acquisition of English

seems probable, particularly if they are cognitively ready for a rule (Pienemann, 1998). This

analysis demonstrates that the verb to be is very complex, yet if broken down by form,

students will have a better handle on all of the forms and will produce them with fewer

mistakes.

Considering that there were several differences in the sequences of grammar rules,

this study sheds light on the need for added research in determining the ideal sequence of

ESL grammar instruction. Further research is needed in comparing the learning outcomes of

the various sequences, especially between Dr. bar-Lev’s SILLy and the more conventional

33

sequences. Moreover, it would be fascinating to see the results of a formal study that

compares the short term and long term success of L2 English learners studying the basic

forms in the unique sequence of SILLy.

In addition, textbook writers must take into account the determinants in connection

with morpheme acquisition orders: (1) semantic complexity, (2) input frequency, and (3)

native language transfer as well as the overall salience of the forms. In other words, it would

be ideal for textbooks to be written for students of particular populations with the same ages,

needs and first languages, for example, English for Russian adults, etc.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

The sequences and stages of L2 development, which are described in this paper,

provide a useful resource for teachers to apply to their instruction and to help them

understand their students' struggles, successes and progress with respect to SLA. Although

the order in which morphemes are acquired in L1 English and L2 English are similar, there

are several factors or determinants that make the process of acquisition very different – L1

influence, ability to problem solve, metaknowledge of language, age, motivation, and

proficiency level. Being aware of the natural order of morpheme acquisition allows textbook

writers and instructors to make more worthwhile choices about the order in which they

present grammar rules. Of course, they need to take into account the need for more time

spent on more difficult lessons as well.

This thesis indicates that textbook writers should also consider the level of

complexity of each grammar item and realize that although a grammar topic may seem

relatively simple, such as the difference between a and the, students could have a difficult

time learning and acquiring the rule, which could lead to longer class and practice time.

34

Individual perspective on the difficulty of grammar rules and the usefulness of instruction

play an important role in learning. When instructors are spending too much time on

something that is considered useless or easy or not enough time on something considered

useful, students may resist or block the input. It seems crucial for instructors to assess their

students’ perspectives on difficulty and usefulness, possibly with a ranking survey, to

maximize learning in the classroom.

Most importantly, this analysis demonstrates that the interesting, though

controversial, strategy to consider is the approach to teaching grammar found in Dr. bar-

Lev’s SILLy sequence; focusing on one form of a verb or tense at a time – asymmetric

sequencing – instead of having students try to learn all of the forms of verbs and tenses in

one lesson, saving the more marked forms for later. We have all experienced information

overload, whether it is while learning another language or following directions on changing a

tire. If the steps are broken down and each step is individually focused on, learners will feel

more comfortable and confident with each step. As confidence increases, learners are likely

to take more risks; the more risks they take, the more they will learn from their successes and

failures. Often times, students will allude to the idea that they want to learn English

overnight. They may try to resist spending more time on one form; therefore, it is the

teacher’s responsibility to educate students of the benefits of this strategy and to create tasks

that will promote confidence, motivation, and success.

Lastly, because auxiliaries are very frequent in English, yet difficult due to low

semantic salience, instructors should consider the part of Dr. bar-Lev’s SILLy sequence of

presenting the auxiliary do before it is usually presented. Students begin to understand that

auxiliaries are helping verbs much earlier than they would normally simply by adding the do

35

present tense and past tense affirmative statements, such as I do have a backpack and I did

walk to school. They would otherwise be prompted to learn the negative with do not and the

interrogative with did you + verb before they are familiar with the concept of auxiliaries.

36

REFERENCES

Azar, B. (2000). Basic English Grammar. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Bailey, K., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 24, 235-243.

bar-Lev, Z. (1993). Sheltered-initiation language learning. Applied Language Learning, 4(1-2), 95-130.

bar-Lev, Z. (1996). Acquisition theory and usable Hebrew. SHOFAR, 14(4), 18-47.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Grammatical Development in Language Learning (pp. 1-25). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Dulay, H. S., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language Two. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. London, UK: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1-50.

Hernandez, S. (2000). Interchange I and Grammar Dimensions I: Is the natural order of morpheme acquisition taken into account in the sequence of their units? Revista de filogia y linguistica de la Universidad de Costa Rica, 26(2), 247-256.

Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.). (2002). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kenkins, R., & Johnson, S. (2002). Stand Out 1: Standards-Based English. Boston, MA: Heinle.

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Language Use: The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

37

Kwon, E. (2005). The “natural order” of morpheme acquisition: A historical survey. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 1-21.

Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409-419.

Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article, classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.

Lightbown, P., & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen's "Teaching issues: Formal grammar instruction": Two readers react. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 717-722.

Liu, D., & Gleason, J. L. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 1-26.

Master, P. (1997). The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy. System, 25, 215-232.

McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2005). Touchstone 1. New York, NY: Cambridge.

Parrish, B. (1987). A new look at methodologies in the study of article acquisition for learners of ESL. Language Learning, 37, 361-383.

Pica, T. (2005). Second language acquisition research and applied linguistics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 263-280). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Pienemann, M. (2007). Processibility theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 137-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying Second Language Research (pp. 383-420). Adelaide, Australia: NCRC.

Rosansky, E. J. (1976). Methods and morphemes in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 26, 409–425

Scheffler, P. (2009). Rule difficulty and the usefulness of instruction. ELT Journal, 63(1), 5-12.

38

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, L1 influence and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1-22.

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.

39

APPENDIX A

ORDER OF ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH

MORPHEMES IN MAJOR L1 AND L2 STUDIES

40

Table A.1. Order of Acquisition of English Morphemes in Major L1 and L2 Studies

Source: Kwon, E. (2005). The “natural order” of morpheme acquisition: A historical survey. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 1-21.

41

APPENDIX B

SEQUENCES OF GRAMMAR RULES

42

Table B.1. Sequences of Grammar Rules

Azar Touchstone Stand Out SILLy 1. be: singular (1st, 2nd, and 3rd person) 2. be: plural 3. be: negative 4. be: yes/no questions 5. have: present 6. possessive pronouns 7. his, that, these, those 8. wh- questions: present

1. be with I, you, and we: statements, yes/no questions, +/- answers 2. be: what questions 3. 3rd person be: statements, yes/no questions, +/- answer 4. a, an 5. this and these 6. the 7. regular and irregular plural nouns 8. where questions

1. subject pronouns 2. be (1st, 2nd, and 3rd person) 3. be: negative 4. be: yes/no 5. possessive pronouns 6. be: info questions 7. have (don’t and doesn’t) 8. simple present

1. First person Be 2. Second person Be 3. I do verb You do verb 4. Be: negative and (do not) Adding not after the helping or linking verb; Yes/no questions and short answers; my, your 5. some, irr plural (animate), past (with did)

9. simple present 10. irregular singular verbs: has, does, goes 11. simple present negative (don’t, doesn’t) 12. simple present questions 13. present progressive 14. present progressive negative 15. present progressive questions 16. there + be 17. need, want, would like

9. possessive pronouns 10. be: info questions 11. simple present: statements 12. simple present: negatives (don’t, doesn’t) 13. simple present: yes/no 14. be: negatives (more practice) 15. simple present: info questions 16. there + be

9. simple present: yes/no 10. singular and plural nouns; this, that, these, those 11. an and an 12. imperatives 13. there + be 14. present progressive 15. present progressive: negative; yes/no 16. present progressive: info questions

6. Present progressive I am, You are + ing 7. future tense (will) 8. Other helping verbs: can, must 9. Be with he, she, it (3rd person)

18. subject pronouns and object pronouns 19. nouns: singular and plural 20. nouns: irregular plural forms 21. an, a 22. an, a and some 23. many, much, a few, a little 24. the

17. present progressive: statement, yes/no, info questions 18. imperatives; like to, want to, need to, have to

17. prepositions 18. parts of speech 19. time expressions

10. Do adds –s with a he, she subject (does). Questions and negatives with do 11. Sg animate nouns, those, these; one

25. using 0 (no article) to make generalizations 26. past tense, negative, questions 27. past progressive 28. future tense, questions (will) 29. may, might, will

19. this, these, that, those 20. can, can’t 21. simple past: statements, yes/no, info questions 22. some, any

20. adverbs; can, want, need 21. should 22. a /an and the 23. simple past, future, simple past: yes/no

12. the, a like to, want to, wh- questions