Proposals for Task-Based Teaching of English

based on Cognitive Grammar

Quang Thị Hoàn, MA- Sở GD-ĐT Hà Nội- 0964101082- Email: quangthihoan@[Link]

Phạm Ngọc Tuấn, MA- trường ĐH Kinh doanh & Công nghệ Hà Nội-0981848265
Abstract

Task-oriented language education is based on the ideation of the many

communication approaches available, which is why it is primarily focused on
communication. However, many teachers, in the aim of developing communication skills
tend to avoid grammar teaching. This study goes much farther, arguing that grammar
is as significant as lexis (although in a more abstract way), and that teaching grammar
should thus, go along with teaching communicating. In our proposals, we first, focus on
the development and advantages of task-based language teaching with the role of
grammar; then, offer an introduction to cognitive grammar and its applications and
additionally outlines their potential for the foreign language classroom. In conclusion,
a mixture of the two approaches of task-based language teaching and applied cognitive
grammar will be virtually planned to show how one may benefit from the other and to
explain in detail how the grammatical role can be implemented in a task-based action
through a communicative situation.

Key words: task -based language teaching, coginitive, grammar…

An Overview of Grammar Pedagogy and Contexts of Task based Language Teaching

Grammar rules has traditionally been a focal point in foreign language classrooms
and for millennia, learning a language has meant learning its vocabulary and grammar.
Most of us who have studied a foreign language in school have had grammar-focused
methods, which linguists refer to as a structural syllabus. The language class (and
generally the related textbook) is structured by grammatical aspect in a structural
syllabus. In order to present a new grammar point to learners, teachers have a habit of
using examples via coursebooks that look like freezed context without realtime speech.
1
The new knowledge of grammar must have been not only deductively taught but also
put in learners’ mind inductively. Noam Chomsky, in the late 1950s, expressed his
opposition to both structural linguistics and B. F. Skinner's behaviorist theories of
language development when he criticized structural linguistics for focusing on
identifying specific components of language (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs)
based on language data; such an approach, according to Chomsky, could never
adequately explain for a language's grammar becausse the rules of grammar in every
language allow speakers and writers to combine sentences or embed sentences within
other sentences, resulting in an infinite number of possible sentences – no sample of
language, no matter how large, could ever allow linguists to adequately describe this
infinite variety. The so called PPP Technique (Presentstion - Practice - Production) lets
teachers analyse the form and use of the grammar features with a tip off that helps
learners easily learn by heart. Understanding the worries of language teachers, Odlin
(1994), Norris and Ortega (2000), Nassaji and Fotos (2004; 2011) have done some
researches and highlighted the importance of grammar in foreign language classes and
how grammar can be successfully taught. Odlin (1994) observes that educational
grammar is inherently "a hybrid discipline," drawing from a variety of fields of study.
Although criticism of the Grammar-Translation Method arose quite early on, little
changed until World War II, when the need for individuals to really speak other
languages became critical, new approaches, such as what VanPatten and Williams
(2013) state to as the "Army way," were created to guide learners toward the capacity to
truly speak the language in question. However, the Audiolingual Approach, which is
founded on behavioristic ideas via stimulus-response, was established in the United
States, but swiftly spread to many German schools in the 1970s. This method
emphasized oral practice, repetition, and automation and pattern exercises, in which
grammar was performed, for instant, when learners were given an active sentence to turn
into a passive sentence, but the transition was not taught further. Instead, the strategy
focused on the 'habitualisation' of a grammatical structure through repetition: anytime
the learners heard a given stimulus, they were supposed to respond with a conditioned
response. As a result, the students were nonetheless unprepared for ordinary
conversation, although having considerably better pronunciation than those who had
2
been taught using the Grammar-Translation Method. For all of these reasons, the
audiolingual technique was quickly abandoned.

Task-based language teaching (TLT), in contrast to teacher-centered systems such

as Grammar-Translation and Audiolingualism, which were briefly discussed above, is
learner-centered and meaning-oriented, and has its sources from communicative
language education. Nunan (2015) strongly agrees with the views on realization of
methodology in TLT for it pays much attention to learners much rather than other
puposes and it also help learners concentrate on structured comunication with specific
topics in tasks. Under discussions on what is the essence of language learning in the
point of socialculture views of second language acquisition, R. Ellis (2003) defines the
process of language acquisition as “parts of interaction” rather than “result of
interaction” and, also argues, “if learners are to develop the competence they need to use
a second language easily and effectively in the kinds of situations they meet outside the
classroom they need to experience how language is used as a tool for communicating
inside it”. In other words, acquisition of second language, thus, is not a wholly individual
process, but rather one that is shared by the individual and others because language exists
to facilitate communication and engagement. It should come as no surprise that learners
acquire language through using it, whether with the teachers or other students, or later
in real-world circumstances. Teachers have a must in responsibility to choose
appropriate exercises and themes, taking into account not only the learners' age,
motivation, and interests, but also the utility of the elicited language for real-world
communication, i.e. outside school. For the above general views, this paper aims at doing
some proposals based on the applicant of cognitive grammar in English class through
task based teaching principles.

Last but not least, in Vietnam, the form of assessment of teaching effectiveness
focuses only on: writing, listening reading comprehension, grammar exercises,
especially grade-level exams with out practical language in real life. Teachers trend to
teach English only for exams in stead of enriching themselves in other skills, especially
listening and speaking, which contributes to the decrease in the quality of teachers
teaching practical English. Moreover, the size of a class (over 35 students/class) and lack
3
of assistive technology make it difficult to teach effective language practice skills.
Consequently, all of above reasons give a hand in descreasing the motivation to learn
English of students, as well as teachers.1

Why Grammar?

First, we have a quick look on changes of grammar pedagogy throughout time in

order to comprehend the necessity for flexibility in grammar teaching/learning.
Historically, studying a second language mostly consisted of grammatical analysis and
translation of written forms, as several grammarians, Herron (1976), Howatt (1984),
Rutherford (1987), remark. At the beginning of the 20th century, linguists comparing
and describing global languages discovered that employing the eight elements of speech
as an organizing framework was not applicable. As a result, according to LarsenFreeman
& Long (1991), languages are now studied using three subsystems (a method known as
structural or descriptive linguistics): the sound system (phonology), bounded
components of meaning obtained by sound combinations (morphology), and the scheme
of combining units of meaning for information exchange (syntax). The audio-lingual and
direct methods to second language learning evolved when this structural understanding
of language was linked with the stimulus-response principles of behaviorist psychology
and when development of spoken fluency in second languages was required. The
curriculum was sequenced using contrastive analysis, a structural comparison between
the learner's mother tongue and the second language to identify and underline areas of
possible difficulty. Drills and repetitions were used as pedagogical methods to ensure
precise output of the foreign language. However, in the 1960s, English linguists
proposed a syllabus based on communicative functions and, as in Johnson & Marrow’s
view (1981), constructed a system of categories based on the learner's communication
demands with the grammar information grouped around the forms needed for certain
communicative or situational activities like "asking direction" or "at a hotel reception."
Skehan (1998) labels this approach the three Ps: presentation, practice, and production,
with the first stage involving the presentation of a single grammar point, the second stage

1
[Link]
4
requiring learner practice within a controlled framework, and the final stage requiring
learner production of the form more voluntarily. Chomsky (1957) rejected the
structuralist view of language as a habit, instead seeing it as a generational process
unique to the human brain, based on a grammar of surface or visible forms of speech
and underlying structures. As a result, the syntactic universality of all languages, such as
agents (subjects) and objects, could be identified, and universal grammars were
considered to underpin all languages from then. With the emergence of Chomsky's
theory of universal grammar and syntax, explicit grammar teaching was re-emphasized.
Grammar classes and classroom curricula are built on the learner's prior knowledge,
allowing them to construct new meanings and promoting deductive learning. Moreover,
This cognitive view of language learning is that the grammar is too complex to learn
naturally, and the cognitive view of language acquisition at the time included an infinite
number of structures that the speaker created and understood. As a basic framework for
all second language competence, McLaughlin & Zemblidge (1992) shows that second
language teaching should include grammar lessons, in which methodology focused on
teaching traditional formal grammar and had the additional goal of developing learners'
analytical language skills. Called “focus on form,” a new approach to grammar
instruction combines formal instruction and communicative language use is based on the
distinction between explicit instruction on grammar forms (with an s) and meaning-
focused use of form (no s) in such a way that the learner must notice, then process the
target grammar structure in purely communicative input. And, both Pienemann (1984)
and Long (1991) argue that traditional structural syllabuses that teach specific sequences
of grammar forms do not produce communicative competence, only formal knowledge
of grammar rules, unless learners have reached the stage of interlanguage development
where they are psycholinguistically ready to acquire the instructed forms, according to
this theory. Next, let’s discuss some today perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms. As seen in VanPatten (1993), Ellis (1994), Skehan (1996a)2, an

2
VanPatten (1993), Ellis (1994), Skehan (1996a) and others argue five stages of the learning process will be distinguished
here in order to arrive at a rationale for grammar-focused instruction in teaching and teaching materials: input, intake,
acquisition, access, output.

5
emphasis on grammar can be handled at many phases of the teaching/learning process,
including Input, Intake, Acquisition, Access, and Output. In Skehan’s, he suggests the
following principles: a. Language exposure at a suitable level of difficulty; b.
Engagement in meaning-focused interaction in the language; c. Opportunities for
learners to observe or attend to linguistic form while using the language; and, d.
Opportunities to extend the language resources learners utilize throughout time (both
meaning and grammar). In addition, he suggests that there should be three possible times
at which a focus on grammar can be offered in task work: prior to the task, during the
task, and after the task. In addition to communicative language activities, the use of
exceptional instructor intervention to offer remedial feedback on errors made during task
completion is an appealing option to grammar-based instruction. A second language,
which may or may not be adequate to reach a satisfactory degree of grammatical
correctness while learning. As a result, considerable thought should be given to how to
focus on grammatical forms even more during the task design and use process. "A
continual cycle of analysis and integration," according to Skehan (1996a), "achieved by
altering the learner's attention focus... and the three goals of reconstruction, correctness,
and fluency."3
In contrast, most teachers think of grammar as explanations of a language's
structure, prescriptions for its usage, sometimes as sentence meaning or style, and the
kind of books meant to teach all of these things. However, highly few instructors have
realized that underlying those four senses of grammar is a greater essential one: the
unconscious command of syntax that allows us to recognize and speak the language. As
Noguchi (1991) refers, for the duration of previous centuries, conventional school
grammar seems to have had primary objectives: (1) disciplining and schooling the
thoughts (and on occasion the soul); and (2) teaching grammatical paperwork and word
usages that have been considered accurate or socially prestigious. Ostensibly the socially
prestigious forms were taught to allow the lower classes to move extra effortlessly into
the middle elegance (or the middle lessons into the upper elegance), but one suspects

3
Skehan, P. (1996a). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In [Link] & [Link] (Eds.),
Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17–30). Oxford: Heinemann.

6
that in effect if no longer cause, the end result has more often been to provide the center
and top training an excuse for considering themselves advanced to others.
In the last 30 years, there has been much discussion over the role of grammar
teaching and learning in the second/foreign language class. However, at the dawn of
communicative language teaching as Allwright (1979), Krashen (1982), Krashen &
Terrell (1983) recommend, the role of grammar teaching has been questioned, and also,
has been advocated with the fact that teaching grammar does not correlate with acquiring
grammar. Besides, in some researches, Swain (1985), Doughty & Williams (1998)
suggest that "natural" language learning does not lead to high levels of grammatical and
sociolinguistic competence and they point out various arguments for incorporating a
"focus on form"4 into the language curriculum.
From above arguments, we wonder if it is any surprise that grammar is a complex
and difficult topic for language students and, even their teachers. And we strongly agree
with “After more than 2,000 years of traditional grammar, and notwithstanding the
insights of Communicative Language Teaching, it is time to turn the attention of the field
of language teaching back to the structural area of language, but with new points of
view. Clearly, we have some catching up to do, so that grammatical pedagogy can be
modeled more closely on what is known about language and communication more
generally. It is hoped that the review and suggestions presented here might give some
ideas for the design of new grammar books and courses for the millennium. Under the
optimistic assumption that there is progress in human history, we can also hope that the
knowledge contained in any such books and courses will not be with us for another two
thousand years but will rather be recognized as only the most recent step along the path
by which grammatical pedagogy will continue to evolve in relation to our descriptions
and theories of language.”5

4
Long (1988) distinguishes between a “focus on forms” and a “focus on form.” The former refers to traditional approaches
to grammar teaching based on a structure-of-the- day approach. The latter refers to drawing learners’ attention to linguistic
forms (and the meanings they realize) in the context of activities in which the learners’ primary focus of attention is on
meaning.

5
Martha [Link] (1999) Grammar and Communication: New Directions in Theory and Practice. University of Luton,
UK - This paper was presented in abbreviated form at a colloquium on the teaching of grammar held at the TESOL
Conference, New York City, March 10, 1999.

7
Task-based Language Teaching

Task-based language teaching (TLT) was first lauched in the 1980s and 1990s as
referred in the researches by Long (1985), Long & Crookes (1992; 1993) Nunan (1989),
Robinson (1994; 1998), Skehan (1996). Since then, task-based language teaching has
increasingly became popular, intergrating into a method of language educating that uses
"tasks" as its primary unit of design and implementation of language training with the
main principles: Learners should be furnished with possibilities that make the language
enter they receive greater understandable; Learners have to be engaged in contexts
wherein they need to produce output which others can apprehend; and, Learners need
to be uncovered to real-life language conditions inside the language class. This
approach aims to provide learners with a natural setting in which to use the target
language in the purpose of enhancing communication and building fluency by striving
to use the new language under real operational situations. Psycholinguistics, by
definition, should have a lot to offer task-based education for it focuses on learning,
memory, process, and linguistic performance models. Consequently, the main
conclusion we can make is that activities create a very supportive and adaptable
environment for learning to occur. There are several options for tasks as well as what
happens before, during, and after an activity is completed.

What is a task? The early points of view for task-based learning explained the
definitions of a "task," but they differed in a number of respects. The most
comprehensive definition by Breen (1989) considers task "a planned strategy for the
provision of chances for the refining of knowledge and skills associated with a new
language and its usage during communication.", according to this definition, a task can
be both a quick practice exercise and a "more sophisticated workplan that necessitates
spontaneous communication." However, both Nunan (1989) and Long (1985) agree with
some criteria of a task: A task is a purpose-driven action that students concentrate on
meaning rather than form; A task does not define the exact meaning-content to be

8
handled because this will be susceptible to change throughout execution; A task should
resemble a task that people execute in real life in some way: “the hundred and one things
people perform in everyday life, at work, at leisure, and in between”; and, A task should
have a "feeling of completion" and be able to "stand alone as a communicative act in
and of itself". And, Nunan (1989) distinguishes between "real-world activities" and
"pedagogical tasks", also he, in (2015) confirms that, despite the fact that 'tasks' are at
the heart of task-based instruction, there is no universal agreement on what a 'task' is and
a task is "the primary building component of the instructional design." Rather than
focusing on grammatical form, he also, asserts that the learners' goal is to transmit
meaning. Susanne (2017) states the task phase is divided into three parts: the task itself,
the preparation of learners' reports on the task outcome6, and the reports themselves. Via
most cases, a task is completed in learner-to-learner contact, either in pairs or in small
groups. Besides, she stresses that the role of pair/ group work not only, increases the
quantity of student speech since only one learner can talk at a time in teacher-class
interaction, but many more learners can communicate at the same time in pair or group
work (This impact is amplified in pair work since everyone must participate and cannot
hide behind those who may dominate the debate floor in a group.) but also, is critical for
true communication to emerge since the students have time to interact outside of the
teacher's influence.

To sum up, diffusion of innovation has become a topic of wider interest in

language teaching (LT) and applied linguistics since Markee's pioneering work, much
of which focuses on task-based language teaching (TLT) with contributions by Alderson
(2009), Carless (2007, 2012), Goto Butler (2011), Holliday (1994), Murray (2008), Van
den Branden (2009), and Wedell (2009). According to their researches, numerous
elements, both good and negative, have been implicated in the dissemination of
innovation in education, including language teaching (LT) and applied linguistics.
Despite of the fact that there are different names, numerous factors are thought to favor

6
In this respect, R. Ellis (2003) differentiates between ‘task outcome’ and ‘task aim’, claiming that an ‘outcome’ does not
necessarily have to involve language, …. are meant to improve their grammatical and their communicative competences at
the same time, for which language use is a precondition.

9
the adoption and dissemination of new ideas, as Long (2015)7 concludes and suggests:
“Several obvious areas in need of a serious research effort – preferably coherent and
coordinated research programs, not isolated one-off studies. The first is the identification
of improved criteria for classifying and sequencing target and pedagogic tasks,
knowledge of which would help improve the design of task syllabus. Second, and related
to the first, (more standardized) work is needed on relationships between pedagogic task-
types and various dimensions of linguistic performance. The third concerns the extent to
which task-based abilities are task-specific or transferable, knowledge of which would
be useful in making both syllabus design and task-based testing more efficient. Fourth,
the whole field of task-based, criterion-referenced performance testing needs serious
attention. Fifth, detailed classroom studies of the ways teachers and students perform
task-based classroom lessons are much needed, with work by Samuda (2001), Block
(1994), and East (2012) suggesting some productive lines of inquiry. Among other
matters, it will be important to identify if and when pedagogic tasks need to be “proofed”
if they are to serve the designer’s purpose, and how their roles can be modified by
teachers and students, intentionally or unintentionally.”

Cognitive Grammar and Key Concepts in Cognitive Linguistics and Their

Applications to Second Language Learning and Teaching

Cognitive Grammar (CG) is a theoretical framework for explaining language

structure as the result of cognitive and social interaction. It is essential to cognitive
linguistics, a vast and rising movement that is part of the "functionalist" heritage. The
essential idea is that grammar is meaningful (rather than a separate formal system) and
can only be revealed in connection to its conceptual significance and communicative
function. According to an argument by Harder (1996), and although reducing grammar
to symbolic assemblages accomplishes critical conceptual coherence, this incorrect
statement (by Harder) reveals a double misunderstanding. For starters, it conflates
syntactic definability with the existence of a clear and distinct border. However, Ronald

7
Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching, First Edition. Mike Long. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

10
W. Langacker (2013) make it clear by critically argue that overlap between lexicon,
morphology, and syntax does not preclude us from defining and drawing important
distinctions, any more than the lack of a defined border between green and blue limits
us to seeing merely grue—a gradation does not imply undifferentiated uniformity.
Second, the sentence mixes together reduction with elimination. Reducing grammar to
symbolic assemblies serves to describe it rather than to reject its position as a
distinguishable level of organization. It is not possible to deny the existence of water
molecules by analyzing them as a certain arrangement of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
He, in his previous research8, states the roles that language serves shape and restrict it.
These include a semiological function that allows conceptualizations to be signified by
sounds and movements, as well as a complex interactive function that includes
communication, manipulation, expressiveness, and social communion. Functional
methods to linguistic study are separated from formal techniques (particularly generative
grammar) by whether functional issues are seen as foundational or just secondary to the
challenge of characterizing language form. In reality, this difference in focus manifests
itself in quite distinct substantive arguments about the nature of language structure and
how to articulate it. Cognitive Grammar is a subset of the larger movement known as
cognitive linguistics, which is itself a subset of the functional school with Construction
grammar by Fillmore (1988); Goldberg (1995); Croft (2001), Metaphor theories by
Lakoff and Johnson (1980); Lakoff and Turner (1989); Grady, Taub, and Morgan
(1996); Kövecses (2000, 2005), or with Fauconnier (1985, 1997); Fauconnier and
Sweetser (1996); Fauconnier and Turner (2002) in the studies of blends and mental
spaces, and numerous initiatives to build a conceptualist semantics by Vandeloise
(1991); Wierzbicka (1996); Talmy (2000a, 2000b); Tyler and Evans (2003); Hampe
(2005). Also, discourse-pragmatic analyses of Hopper and Thompson (1980); Givón
(1983); Du Bois (1987); Chafe (1994); Lambrecht (1994); Verhagen (2005) , Raugott
(1982, 1988); Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer (1991); Heine (1997); Hopper and
Traugott (2003) in studies of grammaticalization, and universal-typological

8
Langacker 1999b. The difference is not a matter of rigor, precision, degree of formalization, or scientific merit. Formal and functional
approaches both vary widely along these parameters.

11
examination via cross-linguistic surveys by Givón (1984); Bybee (1985); Croft (1990);
Talmy (1991); Kemmer (1993); Haspelmath (1997) are all important components of
functionalism, are all key branches of cognitive linguistics9.

In a limit on an article, we offer some of fundamental ideas (key concepts) for

applied cognitive linguistics and briefly explain why we believe they may be of
relevance to anyone interested in second language learning and teaching. Although these
notions are separated for the sake of this study, they are in many respects intimately
intertwined.

The first concept we choose to communicate about a given occurrence can never
convey a perfectly objective picture of that reality, according to construal, a notion
considered a basic argument in cognitive linguistics. Only via human sight and from a
human perspective can we see things. There are no entirely neutral methods of describing
circumstances, even if there are default ways of stating them. Next, consider the
following example (in an English park, for ínstant, we may be instructed to stay off the
grass, but in Vietnamese, we would be told not to step into/ on the grass) of how
languages construe things in various ways: attention/salience (the part of the
phenomenon that stands out most, or in which we are most interested); perspective (the
viewpoint from which we view the phenomenon); constitution (how fine-grained or
'close-up' our view of a phenomenon is); and categorization (how we divide phenomena
up into categories). All four forms of construal represent distinctions in how phenomena
are perceived, which has an impact on how they are discussed. Categorization, the
second key concept can account for change in other components of speech, such as verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, and determiners, in addition to nouns. In English, for example, we
split items into countable (e.g., boys, cars ) and uncountable (e.g., tea, milk) but no
distinction does exist in Vietnamese, although things have varied descriptors depending
on whether they are short and flat, long and thin, active or inanimate, and so on. The
third one taking much our time is that, when it comes to encyclopaedic knowledge, the

9
Quoted in Essentials of Cognitive Grammar by Ronald W. Langacker (2013)

12
information we store in our heads goes well beyond the fundamental or 'denotative'
meanings of words, and includes all of the connotations that have come to be associated
with such words and expressions during the time we have been exposed to them.
Bachelor and spinster, for example, have a far broader meaning than 'unmarried man'
and 'unmarried woman.' The words bachelor and spinster may connote concepts of
freedom and licentious behavior, but the words bachelor and spinster may connote ideas
of old age, a probable lack of desirability, and for some individuals, even idiosyncratic
connections such as owning a big number of cats10.

The last but not least we pay much attetion is that, metaphor (and metonymy) and
embodiment (also known as embodied cognition) are a cognitive process that allows us
to grasp abstract concepts by connecting them to our bodily experience. People's
subjective, felt experiences of their bodies in activity offer part of the fundamental basis
for language and thinking, according to Gibbs (2006). The function of embodiment/
metaphor/ metonymy in comprehending and learning a second language, as well as the
related field of gesture and its involvement in second language learning and teaching,
are discussed. If language is fully embodied (with metaphor/ metonymy), the movements
that accompany it should be strongly linked to the semantic and pragmatic substance of
the messages.

Cognitive Grammar and Task-based Language Teaching

We, finally would like to point out an explicit connection between cognitive
grammar and the task-based language teaching approach in order to bridge the gap
between these two approaches and briefly present several arguments why it is a
profitable in order to establish and foster a way of grammar teaching (that motivates
foreign language learners). Certain academics have recommended that linguistic
explanations be incorporated into communicative classes when needed, but no one has
gone so far as to give grammar the same priority as communication in a task-based
language classroom, owing to an antiquated understanding of what 'grammar' is.

10
in Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching by Jeannette Littlemore (2009 ) University of
Birmingham, UK

13
Besides, learners are rarely shown or given explanations about the meaning of
grammatical constructs, and what is referred to as "grammar" in many task-based
classrooms is typically not systematized, as it is not founded on a sound linguistic theory
in most situations.

In case a teacher determines that he or she wants to or needs to address a certain

grammatical phenomena, they must first seek for scenarios in which the phenomenon is
utilized in natural language and then construct objectives based on those use events.
According to Susanne Niemeier (2017), such exercises/ tasks must be well-planned and
learner-centered, appealing to the learners' age level, interests, and motivation, as well
as addressing circumstances that will be useful to the learners outside of the foreign
language classroom with a specific goal or product. Thus, in this scenario, the majority
of the teacher's time is spent planning such a lesson, providing appropriate assignments,
and considering the grammatical theory and how to simplify it for the target population.
The learners verbalize this aim in their reports once they have accomplished the goal or
completed the output required by the activity (or else, the product is described). For
example, Evans (2012) claims that task-based techniques are congruent with cognitive
linguistics' guiding principles. The most apparent explanation is that both approaches
are primarily concerned with meaning. Unlike the task-based literature, which views
meaning as being in opposition to form and exclusively present in words and
communication, cognitive grammar believes that grammar is meaningful as well, but in
a less concrete and schematic sense than lexis. Since the idea of 'grammar' is considered
as as important to meaning-making in the cognitive grammar approach as words are,
combining these two techniques appears useful and productive.

Clark/ Paivio (1991)'s twofold coding theory is another point to be noted in

support of a mix of cognitive grammar and task-based education. As above stated,
cognitive grammar encourages visualisations, and learning in activities entails using
several senses. Tasks often need many language abilities (speaking/listening are
prioritized, but writing/reading are commonly targeted as well), but most tasks also
include visuals, sometimes even real items, and occasionally actions must be completed.

14
As a result, another key point of convergence can be noticed in the fact that both
cognitive grammar and task-based language training encourage double coding.

How and What should be done

In this section, based on Susanne Niemeier (2017)’s experimental action

researches, we shall proposes ideas and steps (when planning a task-based grammar
sessions) for incorporating grammatical phenomena into a task-based learning strategy
with a few recommendations on how to build a task-based grammar lesson:

First, each grammar issue is briefly described in terms of its form, and then its
meaning is carefully examined from a cognitive-grammatical standpoint; Next, a
suitable communicative situation should be chosen and outlined, the learners' prior
knowledge is discussed (primarily in relation to word fields and grammar structures that
should have been addressed before the new grammar topic is introduced), and a didactic
reduction of the cognitive grammar theory for the learneris carried out; The skills that
the students will gain from the session are outlined, and the whole task cycle for the
grammatical issue in question is explained as a final step; Alternative communication
circumstances are also briefly mentioned so that instructors have a variety of options.

Steps when planning a task-based grammar sessions:

1. Choose the grammatical structure that will be taught.

2. Completely examine the grammatical phenomena, both in terms of its form as well as
its meaning and application. Only after the instructor fully comprehends the
grammatical issue in all of its complexities can it be made into a task.

3. Simplify the grammar issue didactically with the learners in mind, since grammatical
information should not be overly complicated. It is always best to begin with prototypical
usages and only after these have been internalized by the learners should non-
prototypical usages be addressed, as a thorough understanding of prototypical usages
is a necessary prerequisite for the introduction of non-prototypical exemplars.

15
4. Determine a communication context in which native speakers of the target language
commonly employ the grammatical issue in question. This circumstance, in particular,
must be relevant to the learners' age and interests, as well as stimulating for them in a
comparable communication situation outside of the classroom, such as when traveling
overseas.

5. Examine the terminology required for the communicative task. Analyze the vocabulary
and only utilize lexemes that are totally consistent. The spelling of the words, as well as
their meanings, must be examined.

6. Decide if the activity is best completed in pairs or in small groups. Prepare a method
for assigning learners to groups when deciding on small groups.

7. Create a task that relates to the communicative circumstance and allows the instructor
to utilize the grammatical construction in issue during the pre-task.

8. Carefully design the work instructions and never underestimate the difficulty of such
instructions. Alternatively, print step-by-step instructions on the learners' worksheets or
offer step-by-step instructions for sure during the time the learners are working on the
tasks.

9. Allow students to examine their own sentences and make their own recommendations,
theories, and conclusions. If they're having problems, don't offer them rules to
memorize; instead, give them explanations that they can follow and comprehend.

10. If there is adequate time, ask the students to apply the new structure to a different
word field or a different topic.

Conclusion

Reference

16
17