Grammar-Translation Method and Direct Method

Grammar-Translation Method

The Grammar-Translation Method, the most popular and influential teaching method in China, is a method of foreign or second language teaching which uses translation and grammar study as the main teaching and learning activities. It was once called Classical Method since it was first used in the teaching of the classical languages of Latin and Greek. It focuses on grammatical rules, memorization of vocabulary and of various declensions and conjugations, translations of texts, and doing written exercises.

As other languages began to be taught in educational institutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Classical Method was adopted as the chief means for teaching foreign languages. Little thought was given at the time to teach people how to speak the language; after all, languages were not being taught primarily to learn oral/aural communication, but to learn for the sake of being “scholarly” or, in some instances, for gaining reading proficiency in a foreign language. Since there were few theoretical researches on second language acquisition in general or on the acquisition of reading proficiency, foreign languages were taught as any other skill was taught.

In the nineteenth century the Classical Method came to be known as the Grammar-Translation Method. There was little to distinguish Grammar-Translation from what had gone on in foreign language classrooms for centuries beyond a focus on grammatical rules as the basis for translating from the second to the native language. Remarkably, the Grammar-Translation Method withstood attempts at the turn of the twentieth century to “reform” language-teaching methodology (see Gouin’s Series Method and the Direct Method below), and to this day it is practiced in too many educational contexts. Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979: 3) listed the major characteristics of Grammar-Translation Method:

1. Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target language;

2. Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words;

3. Long, elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given;

4. Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words;

5. Reading of difficult classical texts begins early;

6. Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in grammatical analysis;

7. Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language into the mother tongue;

8. Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.

Generally speaking, the principal characteristics of the Grammar-Translation Method were:

1. The goal of foreign language study is to learn a language in order to read its literature or to benefit from the mental discipline and intellectual development that result from foreign language study. Grammar-Translation is a way of studying a language that approaches the language first through detailed analysis of its grammar rules, followed by application of this knowledge to the task of translating sentences and texts into and out of the target language. (Stern, 1983: 455)

2. Reading and writing are the major focus; little or no systematic attention is paid to speaking and listening.

3. Vocabulary selection is based solely on the reading texts used, and words are taught through bilingual word lists, dictionary study, and memorization. In a typical Grammar-Translation text, the grammar rules are presented and illustrated, a list of vocabulary items is presented with their translation equivalents, and translation exercises are prescribed.

4. The sentence is the basic unit of teaching and language practice. Much of the lesson is devoted to translating sentences into and out of the target language, and the focus on the sentence is a distinctive feature of the method. Earlier approaches to foreign language study used grammar as an aid to the study of texts in a foreign language. But this was thought to be too difficult for students in secondary schools, and the focus on the sentence was an attempt to make language learning easier. (see Howatt, 1984: 131)

5. Accuracy is emphasized. Students are expected to attain high standards in translation, because of “the high priority attached to meticulous standards of accuracy which, as well as having an intrinsic moral value, was a prerequisite for passing the increasing number of formal written examinations that grew up during the century” (Howatt, 1984: 132).

6. Grammar is taught deductively—that is, by presentation and study of grammar rules, which are then practiced through translation exercises. In most Grammar-Translation texts, a syllabus was followed for the sequencing of grammar points throughout a text, and there was an attempt to teach grammar in an organized and systematic way.

7. The student’s native language is the medium of instruction. It is used to explain new items and to enable comparisons to be made between the foreign language and the student’s native language.

Grammar-Translation Method has dominated European and foreign language teaching from the 1840s and 1940s, and in modified form it continues to be widely used in China until now, even in some parts of the world. It is ironic that this method has until very recently been so stalwart among many competing models. It does virtually nothing to enhance a student’s communicative ability in the language. It is “remembered with distaste by thousands of school learners, for whom foreign language learning meant a tedious experience of memorizing endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary and attempting to produce perfect translations of stilted or literary prose” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: 4).

On the other hand, one can understand why Grammar-Translation remains so popular. It requires few specialized skills on the part of teachers. Tests of grammar rules and of translations are easy to construct and can be objectively scored. Many standardized tests of foreign languages still do not attempt to tap into communicative abilities, so students have little motivation to go beyond grammar analogies, translations, and rote exercises. And it is sometimes successful in leading a student toward a reading knowledge of a second language. But, as Richards and Rodgers (1986:5) pointed out, “It has no advocates. It is a method for which there is no theory. There is no literature that offers a rationale or justification for it or that attempts to relate it to issues in linguistics, psychology, or educational theory.”

Direct Method

The Direct Method was developed in the late 19th century as a reaction against the Grammar-Translation Method and out of the need for better language learning in a new world of industry and international trade and travel. In the mid-and-late nineteenth century opposition to the Grammar-Translation Method gradually developed in several European countries, which was known as Reform Movement. This Reform Movement laid the foundation for the development of Direct Method. It insisted that only the target language should be used in class and meanings should be communicated “directly” by associating speech forms with actions, objects, mime, gestures, and situation. It emphasized the importance of spoken language. The Direct Method believed in the natural process of language learning and in the inductive teaching of grammar.

Toward the mid-nineteenth century several factors contributed to questioning and rejection of the Grammar-Translation Method. Increased opportunities for communication among Europeans created a demand for oral proficiency in foreign languages. Initially this created a market for conversation books and phrase books intended for private study, but language teaching specialists, like Marcel, Prendergast, and Gouin, also turned their attention to the way modern languages were being taught in secondary schools. They had done much to promote alternative approaches to language teaching.

In his book The Practical Study of Language (1899), Henry Sweet set forth principles for the development of teaching method. These included:

1. Careful selection of what is to be taught;

2. Imposing limits on what is to be taught;

3. Arranging what is to be taught in terms of the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing;

4. Grading materials from simple to complex.

Vietor, in 1882, published his influential pamphlet, Language Teaching Must Start Afresh, in which he strongly criticized the inadequacies of Grammar-Translation Method. Vietor, together with other reformers in the late nineteenth century, shared many beliefs about the principles on which a new approach to teaching foreign languages should be based. In general, the reformers believed that:

1. The spoken language is primary and that this should be reflected in an oral-based methodology;

2. The findings of phonetics should be applied to teaching and to teacher training;

3. Learners should hear the language first, before seeing it in written form;

4. Words should be presented in sentences, and sentences should be practiced in meaningful contexts and not be taught as isolated, disconnected elements;

5. The rules of grammar should be taught only after the students have practiced the grammar points in context—that is, grammar should be taught inductively;

6. Translation should be avoided, although the mother tongue could be used in order to explain new words or to check comprehension.

Gouin has been one of the first of the nineteenth-century reformers to attempt to build a methodology around observation of child language learning. Other reformers toward the end of the century likewise turned their attention to naturalistic principles of language learning, and for this reason they are sometimes referred to as advocates of a “natural” method. These natural language learning principles provided the foundation for what came to be known as the Direct Method.

The basic premise of the Direct Method was similar to that of Gouin’s Series Method, namely, that second language learning should be more like first language learning—lots of oral interaction, spontaneous use of the language, no translation between first and second languages, and little or no analysis of grammatical rules. Richards and Rodgers (1986: 9-10) summarized the principles of the Direct Method:

1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language;

2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught;

3. Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully traded progression organized around question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive classes;

4. Grammar was taught inductively;

5. New teaching points were taught through modeling and practice;

6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures, while abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas;

7. Both speaking and listening comprehension was taught;

8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.

These principles are seen in the following guidelines for teaching oral language, which are still followed in contemporary Berlitz schools:

Never translate: demonstrate;

Never explain: act;

Never make a speech: ask questions;

Never imitate mistakes: correct;

Never speak with single words: use sentences;

Never speak too much: make students speak much;

Never use the book: use your lesson plan;

Never jump around: follow your plan;

Never go too fast: keep the pace of the student;

Never speak too slowly: speak normally;

Never speak too quickly: speak naturally;

Never speak too loudly: speak naturally;

Never be impatient: take it easy.

(Cited in Titone, 1968: 100-101)

The Direct Method did not take well in public education, where the constraints of budget, classroom size, time, and teacher background made such a method difficult to use. Moreover, the Direct Method was criticized for its weak theoretical foundations. Its success may have been more a factor of the skill and personality of the teacher than of the methodology itself. It overemphasized and distorted the similarities between naturalistic first language learning and classroom foreign language learning and failed to consider the practical realities of the classroom. In addition, it lacked a rigorous basis in applied linguistic theory, and for this reason it was often criticized by the more academically based proponents of the Reform Movement.