The Language Teacher
November 2000
"But I have to teach grammar!": An analysis of the role "grammar" plays in Japanese university English entrance examinations
Michael Guest
Miyazaki Medical College
High school English teachers in Japan often argue that the reason they are unable to teach meaning-oriented lessons based on a communicative methodology is not because they believe that a grammar-translation methodology is inherently superior, but rather due to the fact that they feel they must teach grammar in order to prepare students for university entrance exams (Hino, 1988; Yukawa, 1994; Gorsuch, 1998). Although many have recently come to utilize communicative methodologies and tasks with lower-age groups and classes designed for non-university track students, the reality is that as students start to prepare for university entrance exams almost all communicative classes are dropped with the university-track students put on a steady diet of grammar lessons in preparation for the exams (Kitao & Kitao, 1995).
In this paper, I'd like to question the validity of this oft-heard
justification for employing a grammar-based pedagogy. Over the
past several years, the English sections on university entrance
examinations have been modified in order to move away from purely
grammatical, discrete-item content (Law, 1995; Brown, 1995). So
if, in fact, current university entrance examinations do not demand
discrete, item-specific grammatical knowledge, then the justification
that grammar must be taught (to the exclusion of other English
skills) in order to ensure student success on the entrance exams,
is outmoded.
To this end, I will analyze the English entrance examination content
of Kyushu University, a representative public university, as well
as the "Daigaku Nyushi Center Shiken" (the "Center"
test), both as they appear in the 1999 Eigo Mondai no Tettei-teki
Kenkyu (English Test Problem Research - Public Universities).
In analyzing the test tasks I will explore to what degree a successful
undertaking of the exam questions requires knowledge or mastery
of varying aspects of English such as grammar, lexical patterns,
social communicative norms (including pragmatics), rhetorical
and other schematic knowledge as well as the mode of answer (multiple-choice,
translation, analytical skills, reordering, etc.). The degree
to which each of these categories is manifest in these exams should
likewise influence the content of high school English teachers'
lessons, if they are truly intent upon best preparing students
to pass these exams (Brown, 1995). However, to do so effectively
we first have to gain a clearer understanding as to what scholars
and high school teachers actually mean by grammar.
"Grammar", "syntax", or "transformations"?
Swan (1995) defines grammar as the rules that show how words are
"combined, arranged and changed to show differ ent meanings"
(p.xxiii). More scholars are beginning to define grammar in this
way, not merely as the internal structure of a language, but the
structural means by which meaning and communication are realized.
Halliday's (1994) grammar identifies three communicative metafunctions
that grammatical rules serve and argues that these functions
can be interpersonal as well as ideational and textual, any structure
in fact that aids in elucidating meaning. Moreover, both of these
influential grammars are descriptive, not prescriptive, arising
from the analysis of authentic texts. Also, Lewis (1993), Carter
(1987), Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), among others, have emphasized
the blurred boundaries that exist between lexis and grammar. A
true understanding of lexical items such as lexical phrases, it
is argued, includes knowledge of their grammatical relations such
that semantics is never really separated from structure. Lewis
(1993) refers to this as grammaticalized lexis and views
grammar as an implicit category discoverable within the knowledge
of lexis, not as a distinct entity. Given such definitions of
grammar, it should be clear that even if one chooses to teach
grammar, one certainly need not automatically use a grammar-translation
methodology.
Analysis of Japanese high school classrooms, (Hino 1988; Gorsuch
1998) as well as the selections taken from the most popular test
preparation textbooks, however, reveal that something quite different,
something much narrower, is meant by grammar. First, Januzzi
(1994) notes that classroom and textbook samples are usually decontextualized
and thus not intended for the purpose of elucidating a meaning.
Secondly, he notes that the unit of analysis is invariably the
sentence that limits the scope of the term to the internal working
of a single type of textual unit. Thirdly, the grammar taught
is invariably prescriptive (Gorsuch 1998), not descriptive. It
is best then that teachers who teach in this manner do away with
the term grammar when describing their pedagogy as they are not
teaching grammar but rather rules of syntax, which is a
part of grammar but cannot be equated with the term as a whole.
Moreover, a look at the actual tasks that students undertake in
the classroom as well as senior year English textbooks reveal
an even more limited field of study. After receiving both positive
and negative feedback on an opinion and perspectives piece I published
in the January 2000 TLT (Guest, 2000), regarding what I considered
to be unfounded criticism of Japanese high-school English teachers,
I informally interviewed both students and high-school English
teachers as well as visited two classrooms to observe English
lessons. What I noted was that while non-university track students
are given wider doses of the currently popular communicative methodologies,
students with intentions to enter universities appear to still
be subjected to largely yaku-doku or similar discrete-item,
memorization-based lessons. This suggests that what Hino (1988),
Kitao & Kitao (1995) and Yukawa (1994) have noted in the past
and that which Gorsuch (1998) and Mulvey (1998) have recently
claimed still constitutes the dominant pedagogy for those students
planning to take university entrance examinations.
Among such claims is that the great majority of in-class work
that students do in preparation for the exams is based upon transforming
of discrete grammatical items (yaku-doku), invariably by
translating English texts into Japanese (Mulvey, 1998; Gorsuch,
1998). A typical example from Keiryusha's (1998) supplementary
textbook, Steady Eibunpo, ( Kai, H., Kai, R., & Kai,
Y.) shows a Japanese text under which we find "walks / every
/ he / to / day / school" (p.7). The student is then asked
to reorder the words in order to match the Japanese translation,
clearly an exercise in syntactical transformation. Since such
texts are invariably limited to smaller sentences the effect is
that students are basically being asked to do transformations
of formalized patterns with translated vocabulary items filling
in the terminal strings. Another example of this from Steady
Eibunpo is a task in which students are asked to transform
the sentence "Mary is very smart" into a set pattern
of the form: "How . . . is!" (How smart Mary is!) (p.6).
Similarly, All In All - Book 3 (Tanigaki, 1999), also a
popular supplementary text, follows a section on English to English
transformation of a discrete grammatical feature "She is
the tallest girl in her class" is to be transformed into
"No other girl in the class is as tall as she" (p.27)
with Japanese to English translation exercises focusing upon the
same grammatical principle. Such exercises appear regularly in
virtually all Monbusho approved textbooks.
While more extended reading texts appear in the standardized Unicorn
(Suenaga & Yamada, 1999) series, the task focus is less upon
decoding meaning or discussion than it is upon translating new
lexical items from the extended text, practicing their intonation
and pronunciation, and doing transformation exercises based upon
salient grammatical patterns found in the text. Although these
extended texts in fact allow for the possibility of a variety
of practice tasks, it appears that for many high school teachers
they little more than as yaku-doku fodder (Kitao &
Kitao, 1995; Gorsuch, 1998).
This leads to a few obvious questions. Do entrance exams really
include tasks that involve direct transformations of texts like
these, focusing upon established rules of syntax? Do these
tests really require a predominance of English to Japanese translation
skills? If so, is the translation largely a translation of some
discrete grammatical principle or rule, or is it more holistic
and comprehensive? Do most test items require an active or passive
application of English knowledge? Let's look at the examination
tasks themselves in order to answer these questions.
Daigaku Nyushi "Center" Shiken (The "Center"
test)
This is the general examination that almost all university entrance
candidates take before taking specific university entrance exams.
It is the exam that high school teachers most often focus upon
when claiming to be preparing students for university entrance
exams. In fact, booklets of previous Center tests are widely used
in high school classes for university track students, believing
that this year's center exam will likely resemble those of the
previous few years.
The first of the five sections on the center exam focus upon intonation,
pronunciation (matching pairs) and sentence stress of discrete
items respectively, with multiple-choice answers. The second part
of this section is a fill-in-the-blanks-with-the-appropriate-response
exercise that demands knowledge of set lexical phrases, particularly
those having an interactive, social function, as they are embedded
within casual conversational contexts. For example (p.4):
A: What are your plans for this weekend?
B: I haven't really thought about it. _________.
A: I'm thinking of going to the beach. Want to come?
Students are required to fill in B's blank with the most plausible
phrase from a multiple-choice list of four answers: (a) How do
you plan to go?, (b) I'm planning to go mountain climbing, (c)
I've booked our room, (d) Why do you ask?" with the correct
answer being letter (d). Here we can see that an understanding
of the social, rhetorical and pragmatic functions of the lexical
phrase "Why do you ask?" is necessary in order to successfully
answer the question. A similar pattern appears on other questions
in this section, the next of which requires students to understand
the lexical phrase "How can you tell . . . ?"
as well as the appropriateness of responding to this using the
pragmatic force of the rhetorical question, "Didn't you see
. . . ?"
The second section comprises the most explicitly grammatical
section of the test, in which students are required to insert
the appropriate lexical item or phrase into a set text. Interestingly,
however, correctly guessing many of the answers in this section
does not require knowledge of grammar per se as much as it does
an understanding of lexical properties and cohesion within an
extended text. For example (p.5):
A: I like my job but I wish I made more money.
B: Me too. If I _____, I'd buy a new car.
Here the node word is wish. If the student is familiar with the
lexical qualities of wish, that the item connotes an unreal situation
and thus collocates with "if + past" (could providing
a further hint here), the answer is obvious. This example demonstrates
the blurry boundaries between grammar and lexis since the collocation
contains a grammatical feature (tense) but collocations themselves
are lexical properties. About half of the questions in this section
are indicative of this lexico-grammatical category. A few items
are thoroughly based upon knowledge of discrete grammatical
items (i.e., "John _____ to like fried rice!" along
with the following answers: (a) dares, (b) looks, (c) seems, (d)
wants) but an equal amount are thoroughly lexical (i.e., matching
definitions to the words rent and nod).
Section three demands the students reorder a set of disordered
words into coherent sentences. This section demands knowledge
of sentence syntax and corresponds most closely to the content
of high school grammar lessons but takes up less than 15%
of the total number of items in the examination. Finally, the
fourth, fifth and sixth sections are made up of three lengthy,
extended readings, which serve as something of a centerpiece for
the test. In the first extended reading, students are asked to
demonstrate an ability to order cause and effect by reordering
a set of paragraphs in English. This calls first and foremost
for an understanding of cohesion. While understanding the cohesion
of grammatical items is important, an awareness of rhetorical
or thematic cohesion is more central to the objective (reordering
paragraphs) in this section. An understanding of the lexical properties
of cohesive signals (i.e., Although . . .)
is also crucial here. In the last two extended readings, the students
are asked to do the following: (a) analyze an article on international
symbols in order to reveal their general comprehension of the
content, and; (b) analyze a story that includes dialogue (p.10-11),
and make hypothesis about the characters' motivations. For example,
in the following passage, "When Mimi heard Robert say 'What
cheese?'" students are asked: "How did she probably
feel?" and "What particular point suggests that Mimi
was nervous about her date?" the latter question being about
the character's state of mind. This section demands an understanding
of the social use of English, in particular, pragmatics: "Why
did Mimi hold her breath when the redheaded boy asked Robert about
the smell?" Analytical skills, advanced lexical, structural
recognition skills, and an ability to negotiate meaning are crucial
to success in this section.
In conclusion, we can see that the Center test is not a grammar
test at all but rather is made up of a whole cornucopia of categories
as Brown (1995) and Mulvey (1999) have noted. In fact, grammar
(of the type that dominates high school classes and textbooks)
takes up less than 15% of the total length of the test. The apparent
predominance of sentence syntax within high school curricula is
surely not in proportion to its value on this all-important examination.
Kyushu University's Exam
Unlike the Center test, this examination is taken only by students
attempting to enter this prestigious institution. I have chosen
to analyze the English section of Kyushu University's entrance
exam first because public university exams tend to be representative
of a nationwide examination standard and also because it conforms
to a national norm for public universities according to Brown
& Yamashita's (1995) analysis of public university entrance
exams.
This examination contains five sections. The first (p.202) is
an extended reading section. From this, students are asked to
(a) translate selected sentences into Japanese, (b) expound upon
the referent for a specific demonstrative this, and the
abstract general phrase one thing and; (c) answer a series
of true/false questions regarding general content within the paragraph.
This may seem closer in kind to the type of practice students
undertake in high school classes but on closer observation it
is in fact not. None of the sentences to be translated contain
a noticeable grammatical element of the type that can be practiced
or learned as a detachable rule. For example, the students
are required to translate: "All these things he threw down
like a farmer casting aside a spade in a temper." Success
in translating the multiple clauses successfully in this sample
depends more on understanding the rather arcane phrases casting
aside and in a temper. This is, of course, a lexical
problem, not a grammatical one. Fully understanding the meaning
of this and one thing as well as the following true/false
section demand an understanding of cohesion and rhetorical construction,
which implies a more holistic approach to a text. Naturally, elements
of grammar are contained herein but the required skill goes far
beyond the specific application of grammar rules that most
students are taught and practice in high schools. In fact, such
analysis and comprehension-based texts, demanding advanced lexical
analysis skills are increasing on entrance exams (Law, 1994; Mulvey,
1999).
The second and third parts of the test are nearly identical in
terms of the task types, the third adding a question that asks
the students to ascertain which type of the word miss (from
a list of five) best corresponds to the sense of the term as it
appears in the text. This is a lexical and not grammatical, task.
The fourth section asks students to translate a Japanese paragraph
into English. The text contains a number of complex conjuncts,
and adjuncts that demand, again, that students be aware of the
construction of rhetoric beyond the sentence level, demanding
integrated analytical skills. The text also contains numerous
abstract nouns as node items that will require lexical, not grammatical,
knowledge in order to be rendered meaningfully into English.
The final section is open-ended and contains an extended productive
element. Students are required to complete a story (about 100
words) that begins, "From the moment I found that I had overslept,
I knew it was going to be a bad day." In this task, a focus
upon meaning, a sense of coherence (choosing and applying a suitable
rhetorical pattern), and the application of a tone sympathetic
to the narrative genre take precedence over the correct deployment
of specific grammatical rules. Suffice to say that such top-down
processes are almost never taught or practiced as preparation
for university entrance exams (Yukawa, 1994; Gorsuch, 1998).
Conclusions, Implications and Suggestions
There seems to be little connection between high school teachers'
stated need for an emphasis upon grammar and the key items
or tasks that appear in either the center or public university
entrance exams. Not only is grammar as such not really taught
for exam preparation, but in fact, few exam tasks require the
syntactical transformation type of exercise that are practiced
in classrooms. From looking at the content of the Kyushu University's
English entrance exam, we can see that discrete grammatical features
in and of themselves never constitute the answers to examination
questions. Fewer than 10% of the total number of problems on the
center exam required any direct syntactical transformations
unlike the fill-in-the-blanks with the correct grammatical form
tasks or sentence-based word re-ordering exercises that are so
common in high school textbooks and classrooms. Rather, grammar
seems to be but one element subsumed under more varied, integrated,
comprehensive skills. In short, the entrance exams demand more
discrete skills than a simple mastery of grammar, whereas tasks
often taught in high schools as preparation for these tests actually
amount to something more narrower than grammar.
Of course, grammatical knowledge gleaned from high school practice
tasks need not be relevant only in terms of an exact matching
task appearing on entrance exams. It could be argued, for instance,
that the practice of manipulating specific grammatical patterns
would aid in the translation exercises as well as some of the
rhetorical ordering tasks. However, the highlighted texts within
the extended test readings offered up no identifiable single forms
or patterns to be translated. Success depended more on understanding
the lexical and semantic properties of key words in the texts
or the rhetorical form of a particular genre. In fact, as exam
texts become more extended and discursive in nature the more likely
the text will include numerous exceptions to and variations from
grammatical rules.
Nowadays scholars speak not of grammar as having prescriptive
rules but rather of descriptive conventions that are flexible
and meaning-directed. Many of the translation texts on the exams
could, as any professional translator can tell you, be paraphrased
in many different ways with the intentions and tone including
both the author and genre, not discrete syntax patterns, being
the crucial translation tool. Therefore, any notion that the repeated
study of sentence syntax can result in a decoding into a correct
translation would seem to be suspect. Similarly, ordering rhetoric
patterns depends more on the holistic ability to organize thoughts
and ideas coherently than it does on the ability to transform
the minutiae of syntactical patterns, which are but one minor
means by which the meaning of a text is conveyed.
This distinction between holistic and discrete item approaches
(often referred to as top-down and bottom-up respectively)
is a crucial one and both are necessary to ensure exam success
(Carrell, 1987). As it stands now, students are filled with the
need to memorize and practice decontextualized sentence patterns
that do not carry much value on the entrance exams and remember
a host of one-to-one translations for lexical items as well as
their pronunciation, solely a bottom-up approach. This seems to
be such a waste of time and energy. The chances of a specific
lexical item being singled out on an exam problem is infinitesimal
in relation to the number of items one is going to have to memorize
in passages of such complexity. This is also true of preparation
for the stress and intonation sections. It seems to be a crap-shoot,
a pot-shot, "let's hope that the words I've memorized happen
to be the same ones that appear on the test" approach.
Does it not seem more reasonable then to have students absorb
discrete lexis and syntactical minutiae through a more top-down,
meaning-based curriculum? After all, the extended readings on
both exams, and, in particular that of Kyushu University, demand
general and holistic skills both in reception and production.
If students insist on a focus of memorizing discrete lexical,
syntactical and prosodic forms, they can only hope and pray for
the one-off chance that they will encounter these items on the
exam. A top-down, holistic approach, however, would involve a
deliberate pedagogical focus upon the meaning of the text, that
is, a general, comprehensive understanding of the content before
any analysis of its constituents take place. And even any subsequent
analysis of discrete text items should not abstract these items
from the text but rather note how they help the text cohere or
provide the text with interpersonal and stylistic resonance. It
is important to realize that grammar is meaning-driven, so any
examination will be more common sense and instinctive when such
discrete items are likely to be absorbed into the bigger picture.
Many task-based syllabi as well as the lexical syllabus propounded
by Lewis (1993) are methodologies that utilize this type of approach.
Moreover, by employing this method, learners would be able to
approach larger texts with greater confidence, understanding their
rhetorical structures, their internal lexical relations, and having
refined their analytical and comprehension skills. Finally, this
would allow for a meaningful study of English, especially as a
means of communication, consistent with the manner in which scholars
now view the function of grammar. This better allows one to bridge
the gap between the communicative and structural elements of the
language. By absorbing such a pedagogy into one's high school
teaching methodology not only would learners then likely find
English study more fun and meaningful and develop more practical
communication skills (as content and meaning-based focuses would
engender), they would also likely have greater success on the
university entrance examinations! What more justification does
one need?
Michael Guest has lived in Japan for 13 years, and currently teaches at Miyazaki Medical College. His current research interests include lexical studies, spoken grammar, and cross-cultural pragmatics. He received his MSC in Applied Linguistics from Aston University in 1997. <michael@post1.miyazaki-med.ac.jp>
Brown, J.D. (1995). English language entrance examinations in
Japan: Problems and solutions. JALT 95 Conference Proceedings,
273-283.
Brown, J., &Yamashita, S. (1995). English language tests at
Japanese universities: What do we know about them? JALT Journal,
17 (1), 7-30.
Carrell, P. (1987). A view of written text as communicative interaction:
Implications for reading in a second language. In J. Devine, P.
Carrell and D. Eskey (Eds.). Research in reading English as
a second language (pp. 21-36). TESOL.
Carter, R. (1987). Vocabulary. London: Routledge.
Kai,H., Kai,R., & Kai,Y (1998) Steady eibunpo. Tokyo:
Keiryusha.
Gorsuch, G. (1998). Yakudoku EFL in two Japanese high school classrooms:
An exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20 (1), 6-32.
Guest, M. (2000). What's wrong with Japanese English teachers?
The Language Teacher, 24 (1), 30-32.
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar.
London: Arnold.
Hamamatsu, Y. (Ed.) (1999). Eigo mondai no tettei-teki kenkyu
(Kokoritsu daigaku hen). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Hino, N. (1988). Yakudoku: Japan's dominant tradition in
foreign language learning. JALT Journal, 10 (1 and 2),
45-55.
Januzzi, C. (1994). Team teaching in the reading class. In M.
Wada and T. Cominos (Eds.) Studies in team teaching, 119-131.
Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. (1995). English teaching: Theory,
research, practice. Tokyo: Eichosha.
Law, G. (1994). College entrance exams and team teaching in high
school English classes. In M. Wada and T. Cominos (Eds.) Studies
in team teaching, 90-102. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Law, G. (1995). Ideologies of English language education in Japan.
JALT Journal, 17 (2), 213-224.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. London: The Language
Teaching Press.
Mulvey, B. (1998). Entrance exams- the reading example. ONCUE,
6 (3), 5-12.
Mulvey, B. (1999). A myth of influence: Japanese university entrance
exams and their effect upon junior and senior high school reading
pedagogy. JALT Journal, 21 (1), 125-142.
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J.S. (1992). Lexical phrases
and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suenaga, K., & Yamada, Y. (1999) Unicorn English course
(1). Tokyo: Bun-eido.
Swan, M. (1995) Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Tanigaki, S. (Ed.). (1999) All in all (Book 3). Tokyo:
Biseisha.
Yukawa, E. (1994). Team teaching and changing routines in a Japanese
high school reading classroom. In M. Wada, & T. Cominos (Eds.)
Studies in team teaching, 42-60. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website