Introduction
Spoken Grammar and written Grammar are exhibited differently, and learners and users have to identify how written grammar and spoken grammar are applied differently. The concept of spoken Grammar entails the use of Grammar on a daily basis and in real-life interactions. Written Grammar, on the other hand, references Grammar used in pedagogical texts. Spoken Grammar has features that include ellipsis, heads, tails, phrasal chunks, backchannels, and fillers. These features enable the flexible use of spoken language. Spoken Grammar faces the challenge of authenticity as individuals, especially native speakers when language is not presented in native form.
1. What is Spoken Grammar?
Spoken Grammar represents the application of Grammar in daily interactions. Spoken Grammar is flexible in the sense that it is the basis of conversations and daily human interactions. Speech is a crucial component in daily life, enabling the interaction of individuals in multiple aspects and basis (Rühlemann, 2008). The importance attached to daily interactions means that spoken Grammar requires as much emphasis in current contexts as written Grammar. Previous pedagogy and norm consider spoken language as inferior to written Grammar due to the propensity to the deliberate assertion that the various forms of dislocation in daily discourse concoct spoken Grammar, diminishing its quality in comparison to written Grammar. Thus spoken Grammar is considered as bad Grammar as a result since spoken Grammar is non-standard and often produces grammatically unacceptable results with increased usage of spoken Grammar (Rühlemann, 2008).
In the analysis of spoken Grammar, the ambiguity that surrounds its usage, both in native and non-native speakers, is a cause for concern in the definition of spoken Grammar and its impact on linguistics and language in general. However, recent studies have indicated that the increased usage of spoken Grammar ultimately leads to increased proficiency and fluency among both native and non-native speakers (Rühlemann, 2008). The use of spoken Grammar is common in daily interactions, as mentioned above. Thus when individuals use spoken Grammar frequently, this frequency aids in the establishment of relationships through interactions. These relationships bode well for the usage of spoken Grammar since users and teachers alike can apply systematic principles of spoken Grammar to good effect (Timmis, 2005). In addition, especially in native speakers, the unconscious need and desire to revert to informal Grammar is a significant aspect of spoken Grammar, both in learning contexts and outside learning contexts. In addition, spoken language is attached to interest. Individuals who are interested in a particular language are more likely to speak it openly as compared to individuals that are uninterested. Spoken Grammar is thus a conduit to spark natural interaction in individuals as well as induce interest among individuals, both native and non-native speakers (Timmis, 2005). In addition, the authenticity of spoken Grammar is crucial to fostering an identity among individuals, further cementing the importance of spoken Grammar in daily interactions (Tamasi & Antieau, 2014). Thus the factors mentioned above are significant to the flexibility of spoken Grammar to the extent that its usage is possible by individuals on a daily basis (Timmis, 2005).
Spoken Grammar ascribes to the norms of descriptive Grammar. Descriptive Grammar is an antithesis to written Grammar that emphasizes the rigidity of grammatical rules that is synonymous with written Grammar which is prescriptive. The descriptive characteristics of spoken Grammar mean that individuals can utilize their knowledge in a particular language, regardless of how they acquired the aforementioned language. The flexibility that is present in spoken Grammar means that it is suitable for use in daily aspects and basis. Thus the strong association of written Grammar with rules is absent in spoken Grammar since such rigidity would significantly affect how comfortably individuals can use language in social contexts.
In providing descriptions of the emergence of spoken Grammar, the emphasis on language as a means to relay scholastic information meant that Grammar was held in high regard, and users of language were highly regarded. Languages such as English and Latin bore significant importance in education due to their usage in passing significant information on several aspects. The prescriptive nature of written Grammar can be traced from the application of English and Latin in scholarly scenarios and perspectives. However, the increased individual interactions and aspects of globalization that incorporated the use of media meant that spoken Grammar became part and parcel of modern and contemporary linguistic pedagogy. Critics still view the use of spoken Grammar as an outlier since it does not ascribe to conventional language use. However, experts agree that spoken Grammar provides a basis for teaching as compared to literary language. In addition, spoken Grammar has now been established as not being a corruption of language but rather a medium of the interconnectedness of individuals. Thus spoken Grammar emerges due to the primary interest harbored by individuals to describe phenomena through the use and application of language as well as the illumination of interpersonal relationships through language.
Addressing sociolinguistic challenges in teaching spoken Grammar —- June Ruivivar
Some of the sociolinguistic challenges that arise as a result of teaching spoken Grammar revolve around the aspect of authenticity. Native speakers may find the teaching of spoken Grammar as inauthentic due to the absence of presentation of language in its native form, while the presence of interlocutors in spoken Grammar may pose significant challenges to learning in non-native speakers (Ruivivar, 2022; Tamasi & Antieau, 2014). As mentioned above, the flexibility of spoken Grammar means that language use and teaching takes up a descriptive form rather than a prescriptive form. It is thus common to find that what is considered grammatically correct in spoken Grammar is actually considered erroneous and outside the purview of language teaching and materials. In addition to this, there is concern that classroom scenarios hardly reflect real-life situations (Ruivivar, 2022). Corpus analysis determines that language use in a classroom setting and in real-life situations is often different. Thus such analysis concludes that current pedagogy and teaching of language do not reflect the usage of language outside learning environments (Ruivivar, 2022). For instance, learning of language within learning settings is confirmed to be rigid. This rigidity does not bode well for spoken Grammar since principles of language dictate that learning a spoken language should occur when individuals are provided with resources and material that puts individuals on par with their peers. Thus the challenges enumerated above
The research proposes various solutions to remedy the sociolinguistic challenges of teaching spoken language. Consciousness-raising represents a methodology for teaching spoken language. This methodology entails the examination of authentic language and its illustration, the practice and interaction of language use in various scenarios, and the development of conclusions based on experiences in language use drawn from illustration and interaction (Ruivivar, 2022). Consciousness-raising is crucial to evading sociolinguistic challenges in language. It enables individuals to identify formal ways of language use in different scenarios. In addition to consciousness-raising, studies show that it is prudent for teachers to develop teaching norms that take into account native language forms of language being taught. Such would enable effective and fluent communication among peers while making sure various features of spoken languages, such as ellipsis, are accounted for in learning scenarios (Ruivivar, 2022). Teaching in native forms is attributed to the increased fluency and better appropriateness of language use when taught to individuals in classroom settings.
2. The features of Spoken Grammar
Some of the features of spoken Grammar include the following.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis represents the omission of various elements or parts of the formal structure of sentences in spoken and written language. Ellipsis occurs when there is a dislocation of a sentence structure outside clause boundaries. An example of an ellipsis is highlighted below. A sentence such as, “have you had dinner?” has no ellipsis. However, the sentence “had dinner?” has an ellipsis. Ellipsis is much more common in spoken Grammar, as situational ellipsis omits items within a sentence that are assumed and apparent and takes into account the immediacy of scenarios. In spoken Grammar, situational ellipsis arises from an amalgamation of common and shared occurrences and the informal nature of such occurrences.
Tails
Tails are a feature of spoken language, and they entail the right dislocation of a sentence structure, which provides additional information at the end of a sentence. An example of a tail includes the following. The sentence, “I want some yogurt, the vanilla flavor,” has a tail. The tail provides additional information at the end of the sentence. On the other hand, the sentence, “I want the vanilla flavor yogurt,” has no tail. Tails are crucial to spoken Grammar; they provide clarification to information provided prior to the inclusion of the tail. Tails in spoken language and Grammar also have an interactive role, enabling individuals to adequately evaluate the information they relay through communication.
Heads
Heads are also a feature of spoken Grammar. Heads involve the application of left dislocation, a feature in spoken Grammar that introduces a topic to listeners, which is then proceeded by additional information on the topic introduced. An example of a head includes the following. The sentence, “the movie screened last tight; it had an anti-climactic ending,” has a head since it introduces a movie screening from the previous night. The sentence, “the movie screened last tight had an anti-climactic ending,” has no head. Heads in spoken Grammar are crucial to effective communication since it involves introducing a topic and providing additional information within a conversational scenario.
Fillers
Fillers in spoken Grammar represent words that are common in spoken Grammar. Normally, fillers are words that have no particular meaning when used. However, fillers are crucial to the fluency of communication as individuals often use them when composing themselves and their thoughts during conversations. Words such as ‘mmh,’ ‘er,’ and ‘um’ have no particular meaning attached to them. However, when used in conversations, fillers allow individuals to gather their thoughts which in turn makes for a more effective discourse between individuals in spoken Grammar. In conversational scenarios, an absence of fillers would render interpersonal discourse awkward.
Backchannels
Backchannels are similar to fillers in their functioning. As is the case with fillers, backchannels are crucial to spoken Grammar since they represent words that are used when individuals acknowledge speakers and are crucial to providing encouragement. Some examples of backchannels include ‘oh,’ ‘yeah,’ and ‘uh-huh,’ among other backchannels. Similar to fillers, the absence of backchannels in conversations and informal language use would make conversations difficult and awkward.
Phrasal chunks
Phrasal chunks entail the application of fixed words that are readymade language units but can also be used in combination with other elements in a sentence structure. Phrasal chunks are crucial to spoken Grammar. This usefulness is exhibited in the fact that in real-time, language use can be complex due to pressure, and as a result, phrasal chunks allow individuals to develop ways to fulfill grammatical functions within sentence structures that, in turn, make communication in real-time, informal settings effective and seamless. Phrasal chunks, among other uses, help in the creation of established discourse and vagueness and show politeness. Some examples of phrasal chunks include sort of, kind of, a bit, you know, I mean, among other phrasal chunks. Phrasal chunks also help in easing the difficulties individuals experience during conversations.
The features mentioned above enable individuals to develop a keen sense of appropriateness and fluency in language use. Aspects such as heads, tails, and ellipsis enable individuals to converse better by providing additional information, while phrasal chunks, fillers, and backchannels allow individuals to experience relief when conversing, alleviating pressure effectively.
3. Compared spoken Grammar with written Grammar
Written Grammar represents the application of Grammar that is written and rigid. Written Grammar is often grammatically correct and involves complex tenses. Written Grammar has crucial structural and pedagogical differences from spoken Grammar. These differences are mainly drawn from how written Grammar and spoken Grammar are often applied and the scenarios within which the written and spoken Grammar are used. Some of the crucial differences between written Grammar and spoken Grammar include the following.
As mentioned above, the aspect of spoken Grammar is descriptive. The descriptive nature of spoken Grammar is attributed to the fact that spoken Grammar is used in unofficial, informal contexts (Mumford, 2009). Spoken Grammar is often used in real-life interactions, and as such, the descriptive nature of spoken Grammar means that its application is flexible. Judging by the features of spoken language and Grammar, such as situational ellipsis and the use of heads and tails, the flexibility of spoken Grammar means that it takes up a descriptive aspect. However, written Grammar is prescriptive in nature (Mumford, 2009). written Grammar is extremely rigid in comparison to spoken Grammar. Prescriptive grammar rules are applied in written Grammar due to the application of error-free Grammar in written discourse. Written Grammar thus views spoken Grammar as ungrammatical and poorly constituted. The rigidity of written Grammar, as well as its focus on grammatical rules, forms a hallmark for pedagogical knowledge in linguistics (Mumford, 2009). The deviation from rules by written Grammar is often conscious, as opposed to spoken Grammar which is spontaneous and random in deviation from grammatical rules. The traditional nature of prescriptive Grammar means that written Grammar is more likely to be applied in formal scenarios, while spoken Grammar, due to its flexibility, is more likely to be applied in informal situations.
Native speakers are more inclined to apply the use of spoken Grammar. Native speakers thrive on interactions in real life and are thus comfortable in spoken language and grammar usage due to the flexibility that it guarantees when applied in informal, real-life situations. In providing grammatical education to native speakers, material production has to ascribe to the real-life situations that native speakers face, as well as enable native speakers to achieve the levels of their peers (Al-wossabi, 2014). However, in comparison, written Grammar and its leanings to grammatical rules are more effective in the education of non-natives on language use. Written Grammar has definitive rules on language and grammatical use, which non-native language users can apply when using language in formal settings and scenarios. Written Grammar for non-native users is thus crucial in the development of competence in communication (Al-wossabi, 2014). The development of competence in written Grammar is crucial since, unlike spoken Grammar, features such as ellipsis, heads, and tails are absent in written Grammar. Their absence eliminates the ambiguity in language use, which is a synonymous aspect in the formal nature of written Grammar. In addition to the rigidity of written Grammar, the adaptability of written Grammar to various situations is also difficult in comparison with spoken Grammar.
Spoken Grammar Features: Does the Way of Teaching Make a Difference?
In instructing individuals in the models of written and spoken linguistics, there are significant differences in how teaching both written and spoken Grammar has on individuals and the differences between individuals taught using aspects of written Grammar and spoken Grammar. Written Grammar utilizes the PPP framework for teaching language (Jones & Carter, 2014). The PPP framework entails the use of presentation, practice, and production (Jones & Carter, 2014). The PPP model enables the teaching of written Grammar in ways that allow learners to apply lessons learned in controlled activities. The structure of the PPP framework is a deductive one, and learners are able to gain relevance to language use, as well as the proper and appropriate application of language in controlled scenarios.
On the other hand, the teaching of spoken Grammar entails the application of the III framework. The III framework entails illustration, induction, and interaction (Jones & Carter, 2014). The III framework enables language acquisition, especially for native speakers, which enables them to apply lessons learned in spoken Grammar in real life. Spoken Grammar is effective for native speakers who can then apply the lessons in Grammar in contexts that involve real-life, thus benefiting immensely (Hilliard, 2014). The flexible nature of spoken Grammar further adduces the learning benefits of spoken Grammar, as individuals can then apply lessons to various fluid contexts.
4, Issues with spoken Grammar
There are various issues with spoken Grammar. Spoken Grammar, as mentioned above, represents the application of language in daily interactions. Thus the various issues that surround the use and application of spoken Grammar entail the various principles that govern the use of spoken language and how the application of spoken language affects users, both native and non-native (Cullen & Kuo, 2007). The establishment of core units in spoken Grammar is a crucial issue in spoken Grammar since spoken language endeavors to eliminate problem areas in traditional Grammar. In addition to the establishment of core units, the phrasal complexities that spoken language and Grammar contend with are crucial since individuals tend to avoid complex discourse, as corpus analysis has shown (McCarthy & Carter, 2006).
In addition, the issue of spoken Grammar entails the development of tense, voice, and aspect during interpersonal exchanges (McCarthy & Carter, 2006). This particular issue is crucial since it affects the discourse that individuals can engage in. Thus, As a result, individuals have to make correct choices when communicating to ensure the accuracy of the information in addition to the flexible nature of spoken Grammar (Cullen & Kuo, 2007). Tenses and voices are crucial issues that affect spoken language, and variations show different meanings during the discourse. While pedagogical elements generally apply to written Grammar, grammatical correctness is a crucial aspect of language, and the positioning of clause elements is further enhanced as an issue in spoken language. Individuals thus have to be extremely disciplined in exercising discretionary flexibility when applying the use of language (Cullen & Kuo, 2007). Thus individuals must ensure that in discourse, they are able to place crucial structural elements in the correct places and, if necessary, exercise the features of spoken language such as ellipsis, heads, tails, phrasal chunks, fillings, and back channels to further enhance the quality of conversations held by individuals. These issues mentioned above arise due to the differences harbored between the aspects of spoken Grammar and written Grammar. The comparative aspects of written language and spoken language thus allows for assessments of how both aspects of language and Grammar can be intermittently applied (Cullen & Kuo, 2007). Thus written and spoken language and Grammar can be developed to identify areas where spoken Grammar can be advanced to ensure that there are fewer grammatical errors in addition to the flexibility that language used for spoken Grammar is applied.
Conclusion
In summary, spoken Grammar represents the type of discourse that is common in daily life. The various features of spoken Grammar include the ellipsis, heads, tails, fillers, backchannels, and phrasal chunks. These features are crucial to the development of spoken Grammar as individuals can easily and effectively provide additional information in interactions. Spoken Grammar differs significantly from written Grammar in terms of how both are learned. Spoken Grammar applies the III framework, while written Grammar applies the PPP framework. The net result is that written Grammar is rigid and prescriptive, while spoken Grammar is descriptive.
References
Al-wossabi, S. A. (2014). Spoken Grammar: An Urgent Necessity in the EFL Context. English language teaching, 7(6), 19-26.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2017). Spoken Grammar: Where are we and where are we going? Applied linguistics, 38(1), 1–20.
Cullen, R., & Kuo, I. C. V. (2007). Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A missing link? Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 361–386.
Hilliard, A. (2014). Spoken Grammar and Its Role in the English Language Classroom. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 2–13). US Department of State. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of English Language Programs, SA-5, 2200 C Street NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037.
Jones, C., & Carter, R. (2014). Teaching spoken discourse markers explicitly: A comparison of III and PPP. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 37-54.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2006). Ten criteria for spoken grammar. Explorations in corpus linguistics, pp. 27, 27–52.
Mumford, S. (2009). An analysis of spoken Grammar: The case for production. ELT Journal, 63(2), 137–144.
Rühlemann, C. (2008). Conversational Grammar–bad Grammar? A situation-based description of quotative I go in the BNC. ICAME journal, 32(2008), 157-77.
Ruivivar, J. (2022). Addressing sociolinguistic challenges in teaching spoken Grammar. ELT Journal, 76(3), 320–329.
Tamasi, S., & Antieau, L. (2014). Language and linguistic diversity in the US: An introduction. Routledge.
Timmis, I. (2005). Towards a framework for teaching spoken Grammar. ELT Journal, 59(2), 117–125.
write