Paula declared that she disagreed with the challenge imposed by the government, as they oblige teachers to teach Irish through Irish. Rachel also felt that this did not encourage teachers to teach the language.
Aoife summed it up:
Teaching oral Irish through Irish is no problem. Explaining grammar rules through Irish is difficult. (Aoife)
Grammar and meaning were linked in this research, echoing Halliday’s reference (1994) to the aim of language being to make meaning, to make sense of words and to interact with others effectively. Grammar is a meaning-making tool because connections are made between form and meaning, echoing Van Patten et al. (2004). Some teachers seemed to have a good understanding of grammar as a tool (Vygotsky, 1978) to assist in language learning rather than grammar being an end in itself. However, the majority of teachers in this research grouping did not have a sociocultural understanding of grammar in its relation
to the achievement of social purposes. Only one teacher expressed a clear understanding of grammar as functional and he stated that he had not understood this until he had done his masters degree in grammar. Two other teachers linked function and form because
‘grammar is the study of linguistic forms realizing functions or meanings’ (Austin, 2001; Halliday, 1997; Hymes, 1972). Teachers echoed Widdowson’s views (1983) that language learning is not merely acquiring the knowledge of the rules of grammar, but also as acquiring the ability to use language to communicate. However, it was only a minority of three teachers (Aoife, Joe and Mat) who expressed this explicitly.
Aoife linked the importance of emphasising and relating the way people use language (its function) with the grammar (the form) they specifically require to
communicate (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999). This emphasises the important goals in L2 acquisition as being to use language grammatically and being able to
communicate either verbally or in academic writing. This again echoes the understanding of Hymes (1972) and Widdowson (1983) that linguistic competence is linked to
communicative competence. It was recognised that there is a place for grammar in CLT (Nassaji and Fotos, 2011; Savignon, 2005).
None of the other teachers had an awareness of the Common Underlying
Proficiency (CUP) nor of knowing that all the strengths and grammar knowledge gathered in the first language can be used in the process of learning the second language. This recalls the interdependence hypothesis of Cummins (1978) that the knowledge in one language supports the learning of another because of the CUP. Ó’Laoire et al. (2000) suggest that learners ‘consciously or subconsciously draw on various sources of previous language learning in all subsequent language learning’. The knowledge of the grammar of one language forms the foundation from which to understand another language’s grammar. Some responses were uncertain. Tony stated that Irish Grammar:
Ann declared:
Yes often the rules are transferable. When not, it can help simply to understand that rules apply.
Joe is not sure:
if they are linked and would it be beneficial to teach them together.
However, Bernadette summed up:
although the grammar is quite different it can be helpful to know how language in general works in order to apply it to a new language.
While acknowledging that increasing language teachers’ explicit knowledge about grammar through teacher education will not necessarily lead to more effective instruction (Borg, 2003a), it would ensure that it would be more likely that a teacher would be able to teach grammar. Teachers need not only a declarative knowledge of grammar (Shulman, 1986) but also grammatical pedagogical content knowledge of how grammatical constructions create meaning in order to promote more effective teaching. This is a procedural use of grammar knowledge.
This was in line with Ellis’s review of studies that show FoF’s positive effect on L2 acquisition for children aged 12 or below (2002a, p. 229). This study has therefore brought to the fore a topic whereby some have argued that grammar teaching with younger primary pupils is not relevant and that expectations have been reduced based on the assumption that we should expect less. As Paula questioned: are they just ‘dumbing it down’. The term ‘young learners’ encapsulates children of 5–12 years (Rixon, 1999). They both echo Cameron (2015) when she highlights that certain uses of a common mother tongue might in fact support the learning of the second language. Cameron (2015, p. 199) sums this up: ‘Use as much of the target language as possible and ensure the use of the first language supports the child’s language learning.’ The particularity of the Irish context whereby Irish
is a language which is not experienced outside school means that the government are trying to maximise exposure to the language. However, to assume a simple linear relationship is oversimplifying and ignores the possibility that certain uses of a common mother tongue might in fact support the learning of the second language. The importance of children’s enjoyment in learning grammar was emphasised and this did not seem to be the case among this group of teachers. If teachers find it difficult to teach, more than likely the pupils find it difficult to understand and learn. This was in conflict with Bouffard and Sarkar (2008) and Harley and Hart (1997) who reported that children could partake in and enjoy grammar learning.
Only one teacher in this study understood grammar from a sociocultural point of view and two other teachers referred to the mechanics of functional grammar as it is oriented to how meaning is made. While the two teachers did not label their understanding of grammar as functional grammar, they understood that grammar is a way into exploring how choices in wording create different meanings and together build up different texts to achieve diverse social purposes. Theteacher Mat had not appreciated the significance of grammar nor had the confidence to teach it until he had learned more about it through his masters studies. He then appreciated it more. He linked thinking and communicating coming together in meaningful pedagogical tasks in the L2 classroom:
Children need explicit instruction about how language is used but through modelling interactions with peers not through corrections. (Mat)
He expressed a sociocultural understanding of grammar. This recalls Widdowson’s recommendation (1983) to teach communicative competence along with linguistic competence. The conceptual significance of grammar (Vygotsky, 1978) was alluded to in the reference to comprehension when Rachel said that grammar is important to enable children to read fluently and with comprehension and to speak articulately so that they can be easily understood. Thinking and communicating should come together in meaningful
pedagogical tasks in the L2 classroom (Negueruela Azarola, 2003). Classroom teaching that is based on unsystematic teaching of grammar or lack of guided conceptual reflection by pupils does not lead to the development of coherent and complete conceptual
understandings.
However, in this study more than half the teachers do not have this understanding. Most teachers in this study did not understand the conceptual significance of grammar from a sociocultural point of view. Mat explained:
English grammar is difficult to understand. Focus on forms does not benefit children. Children need to use grammar and identify grammatical structure that relates meaning and form. I teach more grammar now because I know more about it. Children are engaging in a more functional approach used in Australia – greater success rates – increased comprehension.
The understanding of language is part of the teacher’s role because it affects what happens in the classroom and also affects the ways in which learners begin to understand the relationship between their own languages and the languages of their learning. Four out of fifteen teachers stated that they would teach more Irish grammar if they knew more about it, with two undecided and nine certain they would not teach more grammar, because it would seem they felt they were teaching an adequate amount.
The sociocultural view of education was evident with the teachers’ recognition that grammar serves to bridge formal academic language. This was in the references to
grammar being associated with displaying a measure of education and echoes Vygotsky’s reference (1962) to grammar serving as a mediating influence between scientific
‘academic’ and spontaneous ‘informal’ concepts or what he referred to as ‘between the opposing paths of development there exists a mutual dependency just as between the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts’ (cited in John-Steiner, 1985, p. 350). A sociocultural perspective recognises, like Vygotsky (1972) that if grammar is known in
the mother tongue the net effect is that grammatical structures are the same across languages substituting different lexems for the same content. Mat understood its
potentiality only because he had done a masters degree in grammar. He echoed Vygotsky’s assertion (1978) that grammar has the potential to become a functional knowledge for L2 learners and it is the means to think about language through language. The importance is seeing how the promotion of learning of grammatical rules and metalinguistic terms in the L2 classroom fosters L2 development from a conceptual perspective. It would help
teachers to be aware of the concept formation. Some teachers seemed to have a good understanding and appreciation that grammar is a tool (Vygotsky, 1978) to assist in language learning rather than an end in itself. However, this was not the majority.
From a sociocultural point of view, the teacher’s role should involve providing children with the opportunity to create and coordinate the many learning experiences of which they are capable. While Piaget (1952)and Vygotsky (1962)agreed that social interaction has a role in children’s intellectual development, Piaget would have
recommended that grammar teaching should not commence until adolescence, because he maintained that the concrete operational phase would develop between the ages of 7/8 and 11/12. However, there have been considerable challenges to Piaget’s assertion that children can perform some cognitive tasks at earlier ages than he suggested.