following paragraphs expand on these distinguishing features in turn.
The systemic nature of the grammar can be illustrated with a relatively simple example. The choices at nominal group level between different kinds of determiner (such as ‘the’ and ‘a’) can be represented as a system, labeled determination (names of systems are traditionally written in small capitals in SFG). The entry condition (the linguistic context in which the choices apply) is ‘nominal group’; the first choice (at least in English) is between ‘specific’ (‘the [cat]’) and ‘non-specific (‘a [cat]’). Each option taken opens up a further set of choices until a formal realization is reached: for example, selecting ‘specific: personal: interacting: addressee’ leads to the deictic (determiner) form ‘your [cat]’, whereas selecting ‘specific: demonstrative: selective: near _ plural’ leads to ‘these [cats]’. As this last instance shows, some sets of choices in the system may be simultaneous: that is, rather than only choosing one of two or more mutually exclusive options, the speaker chooses from two sub-systems at the same level. Thus, taking the ‘selective’ option means choosing both between ‘near’ and ‘far’ and between ‘plural’ and ‘non-plural’. Part of the system is shown in Figure 7 (three dots indicate where more delicate choices have been omitted). Simultaneous choices are enclosed by a curly bracket; and the formal realizations (in this case specific words rather than general structures) are signaled by down ward slanting arrows.
Systems do not operate in isolation: they interact with each other. For example, the system of polarity (positive/negative) interacts with a number of other systems, including determination: here, a combination of ‘negative’ with ‘non-specific: total’ gives the deictic ‘no’ as in ‘no [cats]’. As relatively simple systems build up into system networks in this way, the complexity increases, but that reflects faithfully the complexity of the meaning choices that are realized in any utterance.( Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language, Edited by: Siobhan Chapman and Christopher Routledge).
There are at least three groups of language researchers as far as their views on teaching grammar are concerned. As Rodrigllez and Avent (2002) maintain, those who Support Krashens’ input hypothesis, known as “anti-grammarians”, doubt the role grammar Instruction plays in language learning; this group supports “comprehensible input” by arguing That this type of input would enormously help the learner improve both their fluency and Accuracy (Rodriguez and Avent, 2002; Stern, 1983; Yim, 1998).
The second group, “programmarians”, claims that formal instruction plays an important role and it should not be abandoned because direct grammar instruction helps significantly with accuracy and speeds Second language (L2) learning (Eisenstein-Ebsworth and Schweers, 1997). The third group claims that factors such as age, cognition and maturation of learners should be taken into Consideration while teaching grammar (Celce-Murcia, 1991 & 2001).
Tsui (1996) believes that learning to write in the foreign language involves as much anxiety as learning the other skills, because writing is predominantly product-oriented, and it requires individual work, i.e., students feel they are deprived of help, support and encouragement. As a result, learners suffer from a “distress associated with writing” and develop “a profound distaste for the process” (Madigan, Linton & Johnson, 1996: 295).
Borg (1999), looking at the use of L2 grammar terminology in relation to contexts is required to gain a broader understanding of teachers’ cognitions and practices in using L2 Grammar terminology (Borg, 1999, p. 122). He also contends that “insight into individual Teachers’ use of terminology in a range of instructional situations … can inform our Understanding of the specific contextual factors that impinge on this facet of L2 teaching” (Borg, 1999, p. 123). In a similar vein, Pahissa and Tragant (2009) point out that “for NNS (non-native speaker) teachers, lack of confidence in KAL (Knowledge About Language) and more generally in their language proficiency may be a central issue, but one which has received little attention from researchers according to Borg (2003, 2005) and Pawlak (2007)” (Pahissa and Tragant, 2009, p. 48). They also highlight that the situation of NNS teachers who share a common language with their students and who work in a non-English speaking Country needs to be researched (Pahissa and Tragant, 2009, p. 56).