Conducting a class through sustained L2 use is a concept which provides for a major block of classroom time without oral Ll (first language) intervention. During this period, oral L2 is proposed for exclusive use to support goals for developing oral communicative skills. Frequent shifts by the teacher between Ll and L2 are seen to restrict opportunity for uninterrupted L2 listening¹⁶⁶, a phenomenon hypothesized to carry over to student oral production also, as it influences learners to disregard L2 when communicating in the classroom.

The nature of grammar learning is complex and under considerable debate. It is not clear how much learners need to be told about grammar nor how much practice they require. If the grammar presentation is highly detailed, especially on the beginning level, Ll is likely to be used, since its complexity defies comprehension in L2. It is likewise apt to be done in Ll if it requires students to verbalize rules, a questionable practice, since few students, according to Sharwood Smith, seem to be able to do it. If, on the other hand, the explanation is limited to a degree of explicitness which serves to introduce the grammar point, followed by induction-inducing practice, then communication might well be in L2.

A problem encountered in literature on grammar teaching is the absence of clear identification of the level of students being taught. A specialized context involving advanced learners who have little or no difficulty communicating in L2 but who would profit by instruction on refining their grammar skill must not be confused with students in developmental stages of communication. Much of the literature assumes an audience of learners presumed proficient in communication; hence it need not address the question of which language, Ll or L2, will be the vehicle for explanation¹⁶⁷. In such a situation, an L1/ L2 mixture may be acceptable, since the learners can receive and discuss information in either language.

Such a scenario has no resemblance to that of schools in which massive numbers of students studying Spanish as a second language, including many in «advanced» courses, are struggling to learn to communicate in Spanish. It is this scenario in which one must decide which language, Ll or L2, shall be the language of instruction. In order to make this decision, one must attend to identifying instructional goals which, for many teachers, will be directed toward developing commonly sought after communication skills, with considerable emphasis on listening and speaking. In conjunction with goal setting, it is crucial to deliberate on instructional processes, vis-a-vis the language of instruction, to provide for congruence between goals and processes.

A prime issue affecting these decisions is how much oral L2 use contributes to or interferes with goal attainment. Experimental evidence is minimal, especially in terms of L2 use in which caretaker speech and other psychological variables are built into the design. However, results of two studies by Seliger suggest a general guideline to the effect that «using the target language as a tool for social interaction affects the rate of second language acquisition and the quality of second language acquisition» (262). Social interaction includes a variety of communicative situations in which genuine talk takes place. Information giving, a part of this process, could encompass grammar explanation.

Teachers, through practical experience, know what works in including grammar explanation in L2. Commonly used techniques are reflected in the concept of comprehensible input which utilizes caretaker speech in the form of linguistic supports (e. g., short utterances, simple vocabulary and syntax, repetitions) and extralinguistic supports (e. g., motor activity, use of visuals) [Kalivoda]. Sharwood Smith (54), in his «Type C» grammar manifestations, refers to the need for «brief, indirect "clues"» as facilitating techniques. Rutherford (235) adds other possibilities such as the use of a «contrast with a related structure or with selected ungrammaticality».

An example of comprehensibility of grammar explanation in L2 might include visual markings on the chalkboard (e. g., arrows, circling, underlining). In dealing with direct object pronouns one might find valuable the following visual representation:

The use of Ll (it), although minuscule, appears on the surface to be inconsistent with conducting the lesson in L2. It is, however, limited to writing and does not jeopardize the oral climate of the classroom. Also, initiating the instruction with a feminine singular example assumes that the instructor will continue a response pattern with the plural definite articles, masculine and feminine, coverting them to direct objects (not necessarily all in the same lesson), which will later facilitate acquisition of el to lo. All of this, of course, is accompanied by practice on the grammar point in accord with learners' requirements¹⁶⁸.

Since more attention to explicit grammar may be needed and may be difficult if not impossible to do in L2, further grammar activity might be carried out in L1, but at a separate time identified as L1 -speaking time. It is a time slot in which students may confirm and/or clarify their understanding through questions and discussions with the teacher. Discussion-provoking exercises of a problem-solving nature, both recognition and production types, might also be included. (Corder sees this latter activity as important for testing students' hypotheses about the grammar point under consideration and for combating errors made through overgeneralization).

The proposed Ll discussion time, perhaps of 10-minute duration at the end of the hour, is seen as totally separate from L2 use during the rest of the period so as not to interfere with sustained L2 listening and speaking opportunity. It may include discussion on other aspects of the lesson (e. g., culture) for which more in-depth understanding is desired. Figure 1 represents the separateness of Ll and L2 activities.

I am suggesting a combined implicit (inductive) and explicit (deductive) approach to grammar teaching. Corder (133) also advances this dual strategy: «What little we know about the psychological processes of second language learning, either from theory or from practical experience, suggests that a combination of induction and deduction produces the best results». He sees this as a «guided inductive» approach (133) because he deems learning as basically an inductive process but supported by explanation. Brown also values a combined approach. «There is little value in raising the age-old debate over inductive versus deductive learning in a second language. It is hardly a question of "all or nothing"; some degree of both kinds of learning is clearly necessary» (267).

This combined approach to learning is not without its problems, since it can lead to serious erosion of oral L2 use in the classroom. Influenced by learning principles geared to deductive learning in general in the native language, foreign language teachers combine explanation in Ll with practice in L2. The approach may seem highly efficient in stimulating student discussion for maximizing grammar knowledge, but is discussion via unbridled Ll use desirable given a foreign language class whose objectives prioritize performance over knowledge? In other words, what may be good for learning other subject matter in the students' native language may not be the best for learning a foreign language.

A general disregard for grammar teaching via L2 is seen in publications advancing activities that emphasize interest value at the expense of L2 use¹⁶⁹. This does not mean that interesting activities and L2 use are incompatible, but rather that the situation reflects a loss of perspective as to what the L2 class is all about. An activity in a current methods textbook encourages teachers to ask learners to «explain how the negative sentences they

––––––––   269   ––––––––

just created are different from the affirmative ones» (Omaggio, 420). Assuming that students created the sentences orally, the ensuing student explanation, which must be done in Ll (given the L2 limitations of beginning students learning negation), misleadingly establishes as acceptable an environment in which L2 use can be relegated to exercise practice while Ll use is for communicative talk. Furthermore, both languages are freely mixed, denying a sustained L2 environment.

Another activity involves students practicing the language while «the teacher circulates to help and explain, based on individual needs. It is during this phase of the lesson that students who are still unsure about how the concept works can ask specific questions» (421). As in the first activity, discussion must take place in Ll since beginning students at the stage of being introduced to negative sentences are unable to ask questions in L2.

I am not suggesting that students' cognitive needs are unimportant, but rather that they be kept in perspective with the need for generous oral opportunity to use L2. Teacher talk in Ll, often associated with grammar teaching, tends to produce explicit explanation, which in turn elicits a great deal of Ll talk from students. Likewise, classroom activities which elicit communication from students that is beyond their foreign language development contribute to widespread use of L1.

In place of an L1/ L2 mix, an L2 sustained environment over most of the class hour, including grammar presentation, would seem to contribute to learners' oral language acquisition and to consistency with course goals of a communicative nature.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1972. «The Psychological Reality of "Grammar" in the ESL Classroom». TESOL Quarterly 6: 263-69.

Chastain, Kenneth. 1987. «Examining the Role of Grammar Explanation, Drills, and Exercises in the Development of Communication Skills». Hispania 70: 160-66.

Corder, S. Pit. 1988. «Pedagogic Grammars». In William Rutherford, et al. (eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teaching. New York: Newbury. 123-45.

Kalivoda, Theodore B. 1988. «Teaching a Foreign Language Dominated Class». Hispania 71: 954-58.

Omaggio, Alice C. 1986. Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Rutherford, William and Michael Sharwood Smith (eds.). 1988. Grammar and Second Language Teaching. New York: Newbury.

Rutherford, William. 1988. «Functions of Grammar in a Language-Teaching Syllabus»: In William Rutherford, et al. (eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teaching. New York: Newbury. 231-49.

Seliger, Herbert W 1983. «Learner Interaction in the Classroom and It's Effect on Language Acquisition». In Herbert W. Seliger and Michael H. Long (eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury. 246-66.

Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1988. «Consciousness Raising and the Second Language Learner». In William Rutherford, et al. (eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teaching. New York: Newbury. 51-60.

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 73, Number 1, March 1990