Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-9971
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9994
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Despite going through some ups and downs, grammar teaching has always been one of the central issues in the history of second language teaching. In order to teach grammar, teachers frequently get involved in metalanguage, which has grammatical terminology as one of its major components. Since the nature and use of grammatical terminology in language teaching has remained a considerably under-researched area to the day, the present study, originally a doctoral dissertation, was an attempt to find a difficulty index for a more or less comprehensive list of English grammatical terms, collected from various sources of English grammar. For this purpose, frequency of terms in a researcher-built corpus of EFL/ESL pedagogic grammar textbooks and English students’ familiarity with the terms were used as the two main criteria for calculating the difficulty index. A corpus of 14 grammatical textbooks was created, and then each of the 459 terms in the list was searched for in the textbooks to calculate their frequencies as well as ranks in the corpus. Student familiarity with the terms in the list was also measured through a productive test of grammatical terminology administered to 72 BA students of English at Shahid Beheshti University in Iran. Based on the results, the traditional dichotomy of scientific versus pedagogic terminology was questioned, arguing for an additional category, . Accordingly, 173 (37.7%) of the terms in the list never appeared in the corpus and thus were labelled non-pedagogic. Terms with a large corpus/test rank were reanalyzed to find out about the reasons for the gap. Furthermore, the distribution of terms across the corpus textbooks revealed that as the level of the books rises, the number of terms also increases, indicating the direct relationship between second language proficiency and metalingual knowledge. Most importantly, more than 10 major and minor trends in the use of grammatical terminology in pedagogy were explored and suggested. Finally, as the output of the study, 6 equivalent objective tests of pedagogic grammatical terminology were developed for the first time in the literature.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Akakura, Motoko
    2011 “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Explicit Instruction on Implicit and Explicit L2 Knowledge.” Language Teaching Research16 (1): 9–37. 10.1177/1362168811423339
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811423339 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alderson, J. Charles, Caroline Clapham, and David Steel
    1997 “Metalinguistic Knowledge, Language Aptitude and Language Proficiency.” Language Teaching Research1 (2): 93–121. 10.1177/136216889700100202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100202 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrews, Stephen
    1994 “The Grammatical Awareness and Knowledge of Hong Kong Teachers of English.” InLanguage and Learning, ed. byNorman Bird, Peter Falvey, Amy B. M. Tsui, and Desmound M. Allison, and Arthur McNeill, 508–520. Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baleghizadeh, Sasan, and Mehrdad Yousefpoori-Naeim
    2013 “Surveying Metalanguage through Three EFL Textbooks.” E-International Journal of Educational Research4 (3): 27–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berry, Roger
    1997 “Teachers’ Awareness of Learners’ Knowledge: The Case of Metalinguistic Terminology.” Language Awareness6: 136–46. 10.1080/09658416.1997.9959923
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1997.9959923 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2005 “Making the Most of Metalanguage Making the Most of Metalanguage.” Language Awareness14 (1): 3–20. 10.1080/09658410508668817
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668817 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2009 “EFL Majors’ Knowledge of Metalinguistic Terminology: A Comparative Study.” Language Awareness18 (2): 113–28. 10.1080/09658410802513751
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802513751 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2010Terminology in English Language Teaching. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloor, Thomas
    1986 “University Students’ Knowledge about Language Some Aspects of Language Awareness prior to Instruction in University Courses.” CLIE Working Papers8: 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Borg, Simon
    1999 “The Use of Grammatical Terminology in the Second Language Classroom: A Qualitative Study of Teachers’ Practices and Cognitions.” Applied Linguistics20 (1): 95–126. 10.1093/applin/20.1.95
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.1.95 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, H. Douglas
    1987Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis, Fiona, and Wayne Rimmer
    2011Active Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Davoodi, Samaneh, and Mehrdad Yousefpoori-Naeim
    2014 “The Use of Grammatical Terminology in Foreign Language Classrooms: A Qualitative Study of Teacher Cognition and Practice.” Threshold7 (2): 95–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Drucker, David J., and Joel P. Bruckenstein
    2002Virtual-Office Tools for a High-Margin Practice. Bloomberg Press: New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Elder, Cathie
    2009 “Validating a Test of Metalinguistic Knowledge.” InImplicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, ed. byRod Ellis, and Loewen Shawn, 113–138. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691767‑007
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, Rod
    2015Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Francis, Gill
    1994 “Grammar Teaching in Schools: What Should Teachers Be Aware of?” Language Awareness3 (3–4): 221–236. 10.1080/09658416.1994.9959859
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1994.9959859 [Google Scholar]
  18. Greenbaum, Sidney, and Gerald Nelson
    2002An Introduction to English Grammar. London: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    2006A Glossary of English Grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Pearson, Jennifer
    1998Terms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/scl.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Sager, Juan
    1990A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.44
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.44 [Google Scholar]
  22. Spears, Richard A.
    1991NTC’s Dictionary of Grammar Terminology. Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Strehlow, Richard Alan, and Sue Ellen Wright
    1993Standardizing Terminology for Better Communication: Practice, Applied Theory, and Results. Ann Arbor: ASTM. 10.1520/STP1166‑EB
    https://doi.org/10.1520/STP1166-EB [Google Scholar]
  24. Swan, Michael
    1994 “Design Criteria for Pedagogic Language Rules.” InGrammar and the Language Teacher, ed. byMartin Bygate, Alan Tonkyn, and Eddie Williams, 45–55. London: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Temmerman, Rita
    2000Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tlrp.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Thomas, Patricia
    1993 “Choosing Headwords from Language-for-Special Purposes (LSP) Collocations for Entry into a Terminology Data Bank (Term Bank).” InTerminology: Application in Interdisciplinary Communication, ed. byHelmi B. Sonneveld, and Kurt L. Loening, 43–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.70.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.70.05tho [Google Scholar]
  28. Ur, Penny
    2011 “Grammar Teaching: Research, Theory, and Practice.” InHandbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (vol. 2), ed. byEli Hinkel, 507–522. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error