O principal objetivo do Texto I é:

Texto I

GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION

    As a result of the communicative revolution in language teaching, it has become increasingly clear that grammar is a tool or resource to be used in the comprehension and creation of oral and written discourse rather than something to be learned as an end in itself. When learned as a decontextualized sentence-level system, grammar is not very useful to learners as they listen, read, speak, and write in their second or foreign language. Indeed, as Canale and Swain (1980) have posited, communicative competence consists of four components, only one of which – Item 3 below – involves grammar:

1. Sociolinguistic competence (i.e., appropriacy): The speaker/ writer knows how to express the message in terms of the person being addressed and the overall circumstances and purpose of the communication.

2. Discourse competence: The selection, sequence, and arrangement of words and structures are clear and effective means of expressing the speaker/writer's intended message.

3. Linguistic competence (i.e., accuracy): The forms, inflections, and sequences used to express the message are grammatically correct.

4. Strategic competence: The speaker/writer has effective and unobtrusive strategies to compensate for any weaknesses s/he has in the above three areas.

    Certainly, in many person-to-person communications, sociolinguistic appropriacy and discourse competence are more important than grammatical accuracy, provided that the grammar used is not inaccurate to the point of miscommunicating the intended message; communication is the overriding concern. However, there are situations where a reasonable degree of accuracy is also critical, and this is our current focus.

    In order for ESL/EFL teachers to consistently present grammar as serving some higher-order objective, Celce-Murcia and Hilles (1988) suggest that grammar should never be taught as an end in itself but always with reference to meaning, social factors, or discourse – or a combination of these factors. Larsen-Freeman's (1991) position is similar: She sees form, meaning, and function as three interacting dimensions of language; the classroom teacher must decide in which dimension the students  are experiencing the greatest learning challenge at any given moment and respond with appropriate instruction.