|
ESL Forum:
Techniques and methods
in Language Teaching
Games, activities
and teaching ideas
Grammar and
Linguistics
Teaching material
Concerning
worksheets
Concerning
powerpoints
Concerning online
exercises
Make suggestions,
report errors
Ask for help
Message board
|
ESL forum >
Message board > In 1993 Michael Lewis wrote, "Language is grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar." What did he mean?
In 1993 Michael Lewis wrote, "Language is grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar." What did he mean?
|
Charly_Brown
|
In 1993 Michael Lewis wrote, "Language is grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar." What did he mean?
|
|
In 1993 Michael Lewis wrote, "Language is grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar." What did he mean?
Thank you..!!!! |
7 Oct 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Olindalima ( F )
|
May be, not sure, lexis is more important than grammar.
A language has a function, we use it to communicate, even if we don �t have the grammar, if we have the lexis, we will survive. ( I have the proof, I �ve travelled around, and even when I can �t use the native language correctly, but I know the lexis, people understand me, well, more or less ).
So we must face a language as a whole - lexis and grammar, but we should think of it more as a grammaticalized lexis, where lexis is more important than very correct rules, than as lexicalised grammar, where, however you may know tons of grammar rules, if you don �t know the lexis, you will go nowhere.
I have had many students we can handle perfectly with grammar exercises, but... they can �t communicate.
On the other hand, I have had many who are always stepping on grammar mistakes, but keep on talking and writing and, everyone can understand what they want / need.
We have the same situation, in our native languages, we all know people who speak / write badly, but we understand them, cause they have the lexis.
A very, very short explanation, my five cents, waiting for more accurate answers, so that I can also learn something.
hugs
Linda
|
7 Oct 2010
|
|
|
PhilipR
|
|
Lewis, who coined the phrase Lexical Approach, thinks language should be taught as a collection of (lexical) language �chunks �, esp. when phrases have become commonplace. He thinks lexis is the basis of a language, not grammar. Collocations should be taught as fixed phrases, not as (grammatical) combinations of words.
Examples: - How �s it going? - I thought you �d never ask.
These are fixed expressions, so the grammatical approach of teaching subject/verb/etc. doesn �t make sense (nobody �s ever going to use sentences like �How �s it playing? � or �I thought you �d never go �).
- website (word) - strong coffee (collocation) - by the way (polyword) - Would you like... (fixed phrase)
Lewis doesn �t adhere to the traditional word categories nouns/verbs/adjectives/etc. but prefers the categories mentioned in the examples above. I guess he wants teachers to step away from the purely grammar-focused approach and teach these words or chunks as grammaticalised lexis. I do agree with him, up to a point.
|
7 Oct 2010
|
|
|
Apodo
|
|
(nobody �s ever going to use sentences like �How �s it playing? � or �I thought you �d never go)
Umm..... How about.......
Really? You �re going to visit your cousin in Tasmania next month? I thought you �d never go!
A: I made some more adjustments to that old 50s turntable today.
B: Oh yes. How �s it playing?
The examples are a bit contrived, I know, but I just wanted to show that you can use those sentences.
Thanks for your clear explanation of Lexical Approach. |
7 Oct 2010
|
|
|
PhilipR
|
|
@Apodo - I know these are grammatically correct sentences, but in real life, the odds of ever needing them are astronomical. Therefore the collocation or lexical approach.
BTW, no system is ever perfect. Anyone remember Chomsky �s generative grammar? Learning rules and substituting words, ad infinitum. You could come up with lots of sentences that were grammatically perfect, but completely absurd. (e.g. My cat is a secretary; cows are red etc.). There is, after all, something called real life in which cows are purple...  |
7 Oct 2010
|
|
|
|
|
Jayho
|
|
I�m with Apodo on the I thought you�d never go It�s quite common here but then maybe downunder we are a different kettle of fish when it comes to the English language.
I think it�s important that when we, especially NS�s, say something is right or wrong that we speak only for the area that we currently live in. English maybe universal but it is different everywhere. What is acceptable in one country may not be in another and this example is clearly one of those that works fine here, as in Australia, but not in the area that Philip hails from.
Just my one cents worth �cos I �m a bit tired of people saying what is right/wrong and speaking on behalf of all NSs and the English language when the �linguistic landscape� in each country is different and is continually being reshaped by a number of factors.
Cheers
Jayho |
7 Oct 2010
|
|
|
PhilipR
|
|
Guys, you �re missing the point here!
If the phrase �I thought you �d never go � is common and fixed where you �re from, just teach it as such then. Lewis wants teachers to teach lexical chunks, basically combinations of words that have been linked originally using grammar rules, but are now part of every day language, idioms as it were. Never mind the examples I gave. I just wanted to make a point, not prescribe what others should use. Just see the bigger picture behind this approach instead of nitpicking on some random examples. |
7 Oct 2010
|
|
|
Jayho
|
|
Okidoke Philip - point taken - didn �t mean to nitpick and get caught up in minor details - thanks for the stuff - it �s very interesting and I always continue to learn when I read stuff posted here.
Cheers
Jayho |
7 Oct 2010
|
|
|
