ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Language as a Space for Scientific Enquiry

Languages that learners bring to school indicate their cognitive potential. Their languages can constitute a space for introducing them to the methods of scientific enquiry. Several other advantages accrue in the process.

Assuming that at least two (in some cases three) languages are taught in Indian schools (likely to be true of many other countries), even a conservative estimate would suggest that about 80 to 100 hours per year are spent on the teaching of grammar in different language classes (estimates based on a school working for 190 days and one class of 40 minutes duration). One can imagine the enormity of time invested in this enterprise of notional and prescriptive grammar teaching if one multiplies these hours by eight as grammar teaching starts as early as Class 3 and, in some form or another, goes on till Class 10 at least. This is not only a colossal waste of time of students and teachers, but it also perpetuates wrong and ill-informed grammatical concepts, without bringing about any awareness regarding the nature and structure of language among students. And since all teachers go through such schooling, it ends up being a vicious cycle.

Such a situation calls for a comprehensive evaluation of grammar teaching in our schools, particularly when we notice that explicit and prescriptive grammar teaching of this kind hardly plays any role in enhancing the language proficiency levels of learners or their general understanding of the nature and structure of language per se. It should be possible to eliminate all grammar classes from the school timetable and replace them with one “Language Period” per day. Language will then constitute a space for its creative and innovative use and for engaging students in the processes of scientific enquiry. In fact, we now have evidence that a sensitive focus on language awareness among students leads not only to higher levels of proficiency in language but also enriches cognitive abilities and socio­cultural tolerance. What is being propos­ed here is not a well-informed explicit teaching of the formal aspects of a language but a focus on all the languages available in the classroom to build a space for respect for all languages and to introduce students to the fundamentals of scientific enquiry. Several other advantages accrue in the process.

Languages of the Learners

We generally treat students as if they are empty baskets in which we need to pour “knowledge.” We try to organise “activity- and play-based” learning hoping that students will learn to read with understanding and write creatively with a sense of joy. There is overwhelming evidence to show that this does not happen; students hate schooling and generally end up learning very little. In fact, if we continue insulting the cognitive potential of students, there is very little hope of things improving. These students have cracked the highly complex systems of different languages before they come to school. Instead of building on the cognitive potential of students and engaging them in rational enquiry, we inculcate disinterest for knowledge in them with repetitive exercises of memorising alphabets and numbers and writing decontextualised words and sentences in textual and grammar exercises. Most of our school textbooks are filled with such exercises that prohibit any reflective and critical thinking.

As Chomsky (1986, 2001, 2016) has argued, we are biologically programmed to acquire languages. Language acquisition (of one or several languages) depends on two crucial factors: genetically transmitted innate language faculty of human beings and the availability of input that triggers the language faculty. Children are equipped to acquire any languages; they in fact have to unlearn the ones that are not required by their environment. Given the complexity of language, it should be obvious that language is neither teachable nor learnable. One can only trigger and facilitate its acquisition and, with some effort, an appreciation of its nature and structure, and at the same time introduce students to the fundamentals of scientific enquiry. Children arrive in schools with a full-blown linguistic competence that may often consist of several varieties and languages. We need to conceptualise a curriculum and pedagogy that would provide space for the voice of each student.

Complex System of Language

The grammatical system of language is extremely complex at the levels of sounds, words, sentences, and discourse. Unless we accept the innate language faculty hypothesis, it will be difficult to account for the acquisition of the complexity of language that operates simultaneously in a multidimensional space. At the level of sounds, for example, what distinguishes words like “papa, baba, and mama” is not that they represent three different people, as most people argue. These people are also called “father, grandfather, and uncle”; they could equally well be called, say, “tandu, utandu, and itandu.” The three words “papa, baba, and mama” are different words only because “p, b, and m” are different sounds. In fact, these words are different in spite of the fact that they all share the “a” sound and the sounds “p, b, and m” are all bilabial (“m” is also simultaneously nasal); these similarities simply make the acquisition of “p, b, and m” more challenging and yet all children acquire them effortlessly before the age of three or so. Notice that what is really acquired by children are syllables “pa” and “ba” and words “papa, baba,” etc, as consonants on their own that are not pronounceable; and yet we insist on teaching “C” for “cat” and in Hindi “k” for “kabutar,” etc.

Consider making plurals in the case of nouns in English. In fact, the rule for making plurals in English is simply X Ô Xz and native speakers of English pick it up effortlessly before coming to school even though the application of this rule is singularly complex. The plural “z” is realised as “s” when the word in singular ends with the sounds “p, t, and k” (cf cup, cat, book, etc); it is realised as “iz” when the word in singular ends with “ch, j, s, and sh” (cf church, judge, bus, bush); elsewhere it is realised as “z” (cf foe, tree, cub, dog, bed, etc; this is indeed a large set and validates the “Xz” rule). As opposed to the two forms of nouns in English, Hindi has six—three singular and three plural forms (Agnihotri 2007a: 50–55). All Hindi-speakers acquire these forms before coming to school. Both the teachers and students, for example, “know” that a word like laRke “boy(s)” can be both singular and plural; it is singular in us laRke ne seb khaayaa (that boy ate an apple) but plural in ve laRke seb khaa rahe hain (those boys are eating apples). But discussion on such issues is not a part of the grammar teaching that takes place in our schools.

Children acquiring English as their first language do not have to be taught that the verb which appears with the third-person singular subject in the present tense will be marked by “-s” as in “he eats an apple every day”; no such marking is required in the case of “I, we, you (singular or plural), and they.” In Hindi, on the contrary, the person, number, and gender of the subject have to be normally copied on to the verb; so, laRke khaanaa khaate hain (boys eat food) but laRkiyaan khaanaa khaatin hain (girls eat food). Thus, corresponding to three persons, two genders, and two numbers, there are 12 verbal forms that have to be acquired in each tense in Hindi. Children also figure out that this rule of copying the person, number, and gender of the subject on to the verb will not work in the case of past perfect tense, for example, laRke ne seb khaayaa (the boy ate an apple) where the agreement is with the object seb; even if we change laRke (boy) to laRkii (girl), there will be no change in the sentence. These intricate details are acquired by all children without any explicit teaching by parents or teachers. In fact, such teaching is impossible as this kind of knowledge is subconscious.

Let us take another example from English. What is the complexity of grammatical knowledge that informs the making of simple “yes/no” questions in English? For a sentence such as “John is writing a letter,” the answer may be simple, that is, “switch the first two words” to get “Is John writing a letter?” But one gets stuck when one runs into a sentence like “that tall boy is writing a letter” because switching the first two words will produce the ungrammatical sentence “tall that boy is writing a letter?” One will run into more trouble with a sentence such as “the boy who is sitting next to you and is wearing a red shirt is making noise.” But an English-speaking child “knows” that it is the auxiliary of the main clause (the last “is” in this case), which is brought to the front in a “yes/no” question in English; and this auxiliary jumps over not just a word but whole constituents. Children intuitively know that languages work in terms of constituents and not words; how can we activate this intuitive awareness for awakening inherent linguistic structures (Bhattacharya 2022) and intro­duce methods of scientific enquiry?

Children have the potential to reconstruct this knowledge subconsciously using the rather impoverished input available to them. The input is impoverished because it is often fragmented and irrelevant and is rarely if ever directed towards the language acquisition of children. The lesson for language teachers in schools should be loud and clear: languages are learnt best when the focus is not on language (Prabhu 2019). The focus should instead be on tasks that engage learners comprehensively and where the exposure is rich, challenging, and interesting, thus matching the cognitive capacities of learners (Krashen 1982, 1985); ideally learners select their own texts.

Traditional Grammar Teaching

Ignoring the intelligence and language potential of learners, we inflict boring and ill-informed grammar teaching on them. For example, in trying to teach English as a second or third language, teachers spend an enormous amount of time on plural formations saying that one makes plurals by adding “s, -es, or -ies” to nouns. This may be partially true of the plurals as expressed in the “letters of the writing system” that is learnt only in schools. However, people who never go to school still make plurals all the time; children (native English or those living in urban environments where English is a second language) make accurate plurals before coming to school. Teachers and students (thanks to our education system, no fault of theirs indeed) do not even realise that the “-s” added to “cat” sounds very different from the “-s” added to “dog,” for example. Or that adding “-ies” (after deleting the letter “y,” as in, say, “baby”) is only a convention of spellings; in actual speech, you simply add “z” to “baby” (pronounced “bebi”). Learners will acquire it on their own once adequate exposure and challenging tasks are ensured.

The kind of prescriptive and notional grammar teaching schools engage in fails to clarify any grammatical concepts, and it is no wonder that after 12 years of schooling students leave schools without any clarity about grammatical categories or language structure. For example, when students are taught, say, about “noun” and “verb” in one class and sangyaa and kriyaa in another, it is not appreciated that they are addressing the same concepts. Consider, for example, the notional definition of “noun” taught in English classes (and this is repeated year after year): “A noun is used to name a person, place, animal, or thing.” Almost the same definition would be repeated in the Hindi and Sanskrit classes (in fact, in any other language being taught in school). Students are told that “X” (say noun) is “used to” denote something, but it is not explained to them what after all “X” is. Abstract nouns such as “anxiety, honesty, nausea, etc,” do not fit this definition; they are treated separately. Nouns are actually divided into separate categories such as proper, common, collective. There may generally be a section on the “gender of nouns” in English suggesting that nouns in English have four genders: masculine (boy), feminine (girl), common (teacher), and neuter (chair).

All this tells students nothing about the grammatical properties of nouns; in fact, all this teaching is highly misleading. The notional definition is inadequate and insufficient. English actually does not have grammatical gender. It makes no difference to the predicate of an English sentence whether the subject is masculine, feminine, common, or neuter; on the contrary, Hindi does have grammatical gender as the verb does change depending on the gender of the subject except in some special cases. After learning about nouns and verbs for several years, students may not be able to identify them in a given text. There are hundreds of words in English that can function as both nouns and verbs. These, for example, include “table, chair, copy, phone, insult, nail, dance, bargain, favour, attack, and cook” among others. “Chair” is a noun when one says “I like this chair,” but it is a verb when one says “she chaired the meeting today.” Similarly, when one says “It was a beautiful dance,” “dance” is a noun, but when one says “she dances beautifully,” it is a verb. Nouns are nouns because they can be modified by articles, demonstratives, quantifiers, and adjectives; they can be turned into plurals and because they can be modified by clauses. One can notice some of these properties, for example, in: “Those five shining wooden tables that we saw in Kirti Nagar,” etc.

The essence of language as a “biological property of humans” (Chomsky 2016: 6) is not only communication, as most people think, but also innovation, reflection, thought, and creativity. If one does not reflect and think, there will hardly be anything to communicate. We do sometimes engage in communication, but more often than not, we use language to reflect and evaluate what we are thinking. Language is “typically innovative without bounds, appropriate to circumstances but not caused by them” (Chomsky 2016: 8, emphasis added). It is unfortunate that all language teaching–learning takes place in the “language for communication” model rather than “language for innovation and creativity” model. If the focus is maintained on creativity, one would engage students in analytical, rational, and reflective exercises.

Linguistics in the Classroom

In a video,1 K P Mohanan talks about the three ideas that Ken Hale of Massachusetts Institute of Technology introduced his students to: (i) students do not need to wait to come to the university to be introduced to linguistics, that is, the science of language; (ii) they do not need to be taught the content of linguistics; and (iii) linguistics can instead be used to introduce them to the methods of scientific enquiry. The ideas of Hale were quickly picked up by a large number of scholars (Honda et al 2007; Honda and O’Neil 2008, 2017) who created problem sets in different languages including English, Mandarin, Spanish, and Navajo and used them to expose a large number of students to the methods of scientific enquiry and also appreciate the systematic and complex nature of language. Note that the methods of scientific enquiry are needed across disciplines, be it mathematics, science, or social sciences. Language is the most potent site to introduce these methods to students at an early stage as they carry all the rich data and the cognitive tools of analysis in their heads. Any class has a multiplicity of languages and language varieties represented in it. We need to capitalise on the linguistic and literary resources that students bring with them. Teachers (after they have received some training in linguistic sensitivity and analysis) only need to introduce a topic with some guidelines and the fundamentals of scientific enquiry will gradually follow as students interact with each other in small groups. They will collect data, classify, and categorise it; they will make observations and build increasingly sophisticated hypotheses that would explain their data; they will learn to evaluate each other’s claim and seek justifications; this will eventually lead to a process of rational enquiry and self-correction; they will begin to question authority and doubt everything they come across (Mohanan 2013).

Examining the multiplicity of languages available in the classroom, students may themselves discover the linguistic similarities and differences represented in the classroom and may soon realise that languages can only differ in a limited number of ways. They will also realise that every language works with a finite set of rules that licence infinite number of sentences. They may, for example, discover that the verb in the languages available in the classroom can either be in the final position (as in Hindi and all Indian languages except Khasi) or in the medial position (as in English); they may also discover on their own that irrespective of the place of the verb, the negative element always gravitates to the verbal complex. Getting acquainted with the methods of scientific enquiry is not the only advantage of privileging the languages of learners in the classroom. A pedagogy rooted in multilinguality (Achmat 1992; Agnihotri 1995, 1997, 2007b, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2021; Garcia 2009; Heugh 2010; Stroud and Heugh 2011) provides a voice to those languages that may otherwise remain silenced in education, encourages social tolerance and respect for other languages, and enriches cognitive abilities of critical analysis and synthesis. In the senior school, focus on critical language analysis may also constitute a subversive space for challenging the unjust use of power (Fairclough 1989, 1992).

The “state-of-the-art article” by Agneta (2007) argues for a cognitive, affective, and social engagement with language; the issue of language awareness becomes particularly significant in cross-cultural and multilingual situations. Agneta (2007: 302) says:

Work on cross-cultural language awareness is particularly concerned with the engagement of minority and dominant groups with each other’s languages and cultures. Regarding language teachers, there seems to be a consensus that to use language awareness effectively, they need both a high level of language awareness and first-hand learner experience of a language awareness approach, for example, from their teacher education courses.

As Long and Robinson (1998) argue that the idea is not to focus on discrete forms and memorise rules but on forms in general. Similar proposals may be seen in Nassaji (1999), Bolitho and Tomilson (1995), Bourke (1996), and VanPatten (2002). This work has shown the significance of consciousness-raising activities in language acquisition. Rules are not memorised as was often the case in the grammar translation method; they are logically explained with examples and illustrated. Zareena (2019) quotes several studies to show the significance of consciousness-raising tasks in language lear­n­ing. What we are suggesting is significantly different from the kind of language awareness proposals outlined in this article; it is also different from the kind of methodology generally followed by Wayne O’Neill and his colleagues. For focusing on awareness about language, there is, in fact, no need to teach formal rules explicitly, nor is there any need to approach the classroom with a repository of already prepared problem sets. Trained teachers will work with a rather loosely defined curriculum that would evolve afresh every time they work with a new set of students.

It is eminently possible to design tasks for students in which they will themselves discover the grammatical properties of different parts of speech and rules of language structure (Achmat 1992; Agnihotri 2007b, 2010; Bhattacharya 2022). In fact, they could do it in as many languages as are represented in the classroom. Working in peer groups and with minimal help from teachers, students will themselves list the properties of nouns or verbs. The search for formal rules will be located in a series of activities that are located in multilinguality.

What is being suggested here is that schools abandon all grammar teaching classes and have one “language period” every day. The so-called “language work” done in the literature classes should also be undertaken in this class. This class over a period of time will focus on the nature and structure of language on all levels from sounds to discourse as manifested in different languages available in the classroom. In such a class, the diversity of languages will be considered as a resource rather than as an obstacle. An immediate advantage of this approach would be that students will notice their languages and literature being respected in the class; the hitherto high levels of silence in the class would disappear.

Imagine when students themselves approach the teacher to suggest that nouns in English really have no grammatical gender, whereas in Hindi, person, number, and gender of the subject are of a central consequence to the verb. They may discover on their own that in English, in the past tense, it may not matter at all what the person, number, or gender of the subject is “I/we/you (sing)/you (pl)/he/she/it/they went there.” There is no change in “went” irrespective of the changes in the subject. In Hindi, in contrast, every time you make a change in the subject, there would be some change in the verb too. A central issue that gets addressed by using languages as a space for scientific enquiry is one of the ultimate objectives of education. Do we wish to continue with the “banking” (Freire 1971) concept of education where, year after year, students are treated as empty receptacles and unexamined fossilised information is poured into them? Or do we wish to begin to train students to question all strains of authority irrespective of whether they come from teachers, textbooks, parents, or the society itself? The languages of the underprivileged students in particular find no space in the classroom since the whole classroom discourse is in alien dominant languages of the elite. We need to work towards a culture of schooling

that supports the empowerment of culturally marginalised and economically disenfranchised students. By so doing, this pedago­gical perspective seeks to help transform class­room structures and practices that perpetuate undemocratic life. (Darder et al 2009: 9)

Spaces of Scientific Enquiry

Can multilinguality create spaces for scientific enquiry and subversion that would help democratic processes? Sohit and Taneja (2016) have been working with highly underprivileged communities of Bhopal in their organisation called “Muskaan” for a long time. Their classrooms are always characterised by a diversity of languages. They report the results of their work with 25 students in the age group of six to nine years. These students speak languages as diverse as Gondi, Pardhi, Marathi, Urdu, and Hindi; since they live in a major city, their verbal repertoire will have many lexical items from English as well. As proposed here, Sohit and Taneja work with the dialogues produced by the students themselves. With some help, students could identify nouns and their number and gender in different languages; they could also figure out how different languages marked tense (location of an event in time). The linguistic, cognitive, emotional, and social advantages of this exercise were enormous: students found space to articulate their own experiences; they engaged in dialogue with others and tried to defend their claims rationally; no language was considered better or worse than the other and all students wanted to introduce dialogue and stories in their languages; the desire for search and analysis was at work; studying like this was not a burden for the students; and finally privileging multilinguality ensured democratic processes in the classroom.

Let us take an example from Rajasthan. A typical classroom in the Mewar region of Rajasthan would at least have speakers of Hindi, Mewari, Marwari, and Gujarati. There may also be some speakers of Bagri and other languages; students will also have some knowledge of English, which is the second/third language in all Indian schools. Let us say that we are in Class 6. The teacher can start by introducing the list of words under “English” in Table 1 helping students focus on the “sounds” (and not the spelling) as they make the plurals of these words. After they have finished the exercise over two to three days, they would be able to write these words in the Roman or Devanagari scripts based on how they are “spoken.” The “Mewari” and “Marwari” columns will be filled in by the students themselves. There will indeed be some back and forth initially in the process of transcription but it soon gets settled (Achmat 1992). It does not take students long to understand that the retroflex sounds such as/T, Th, D, Dh, N/are represented by capital letters.

It is in this kind of Roman script that the students will learn to write any language. This itself is a great learning for teachers and students: freedom from the bondage of script is a great experience that students enjoy. It is so empowering to feel that one can now write any language in any script with minor modifications. What is achieved in the Roman script can also be done in the Devanagari script. Underprivileged students feel empowered when they realise that their unwritten languages can easily be written in different scripts.

It is amazing to note that students on their own figure out the English rule for making plurals and begin to realise the emptiness of the regularly taught “-s, -es, and -ies” spelling rule. Except for the set of some listed words like “child, ox, man, mouse,” etc, most nouns will follow the plural rule. When students discover that “child–children” is a solitary pair and that what is happening in “ox–oxen” is very different, they get an insight into irregular plurals that is full of joy.

It will not be difficult for the students to enlarge the Mewari and Marwari data sets as they begin to formulate hypotheses to describe the data in Table 1. To begin with, they could look for other words like “pen” that do not change their shape in the plural. They will notice the lexical differences in Mewari and Marwari, leading to a lot of discussion in the class. Notice that all this space belongs to students and the teacher instead is a learner. Then there is a set of words that make their plural by the addition of “-aa”; notice that it is not the simple addition of “-aa,” the final short vowel of the singular word needs to be deleted before adding “-aa” as in Tebul–Teblaa. Still another strategy is to add the nasalised “-aan” to the singular. Once again it is not a straightforward case of addition. It is simple in the case of bas–basaan, but if the word ends in a long vowel, it has to be shortened before the “-aan” addition as in mankii–mankiyaan. Students will provide additional examples that may support or alter the tentative hypothesis. This is the process of rational enquiry and this works across disciplines. However, no other discipline than language provides a space for an early introduction to the methods to scientific enquiry. Both data and the ability to formulate hypotheses are available in the minds of students. One does not need a lab nor does one need to organise visits outside the classroom to collect objects like stones or leaves to inculcate scientific curiosity.

Consider the area of syntax, that is, the art and science of constructing sentences. Sentences from English, Mewari, and Marwari in exhibits (i) to (v) can be analysed here. Once again, the teacher could start by writing the five English sentences on the board, making sure that students understand these. The class now belongs to the students. The focus is here on information-seeking “Wh-questions.” Once students provide all the data on the board, the teacher could provide some hints like where is the verb in each language? Where is the “Wh-word”? What changes happen as “Wh-questions” are formed? Where is the answer located? All the answers are in the sentence itself.

(i) English: Mohan eats an apple in the morning in his room.

Mewari: Mohan parvaate aapre ovraa men sev khairiyo hai.

Marwari: Mohan jhanjhaarke aapre oraa men sev khaariyo hai.

(ii) English: Who eats an apple in the morning in his room?

Mewari: Parvaate aapre ovraa men kuN sev khairiyo hai?

Marwari: Jhanjhaarke aapre oraa men kuN sev khaariyo hai?

(iii) English: What does Mohan eat in the morning in his room?

Mewari: Mohan parvaate aapre ovraa men kaii khairiyo hai?

Marwari: mohan jhanjhaarke aapre oraa men kaii khaariyo hai?

(iv) English: Where does Mohan eat an apple in the morning?

Mewari: Mohan parvaate kaTe sev khairiyo hai?

Marwari: Mohan jhanjhaarke kaTe sev khaariyo hai?

(v) English: When does Mohan eat an apple in his room?

Mewari: Mohan aapre ovraa men sev kadii khairiyo hai?

Marwari: Mohan aapre oraa men sev kad khaariyo hai?

Students will soon figure out that English is a verb-medial language, while both Mewari and Marwari are verb-final. They can try this observation against other Indian languages that they may come across such as Hindi, Haryanvi, Malvi, Bundeli, Nimadi, Bhili, and Mewati. Imagine the amount of their joy and surprise when they figure out that almost all Indian languages are verb-final (except Khasi). They will also figure out that in English the “Wh-word” always app­ears at the beginning, whereas in Mewari and Marwari, it appears where generally the answer is.


Most classrooms are by default multilingual. It is possible to treat this diversity as a resource. We also need to respect the linguistic and cognitive potential learners bring to the school. Using the languages of learners, it is eminently possible to introduce them to the methods of scientific enquiry. Respect for different languages, cognitive enrichment, and social tolerance follow as added advantages.




Achmat, Zackie (1992): Yo Dude, Cosa Wena Kyk A? The Multilingual Classroom, Video/Film, Salt River, South Africa, National Language Project, watch?v=­l74ULxu­BM3EAgniho.

Agneta M­L, Svalberg (2007): “Language Awareness and Language Learning,” Language Teaching, Vol 40, No 4, pp 287–308.

Agnihotri, Rama Kant (1995): “Multilingualism As A Classroom Resource,” Multilingual Education for South Africa, Kathleen Heugh, A Sieruhn and P Pluddemann (eds), Johannesburg, Germany: Heinmann, pp 3–7.

— (1997): “Multilingualism, Colonialism and Translation,” Translation and Multilingualism: Post-colonial Contexts, S Ramakrishna (ed), Delhi: Pencraft International, pp 34–46.

— (2007a): “Towards a Pedagogical Paradigm Rooted in Multilinguality,” International Multilingual Research Journal, Vol 1, No 2, pp 79–88.

— (2007b): Hindi: An Essential Grammar, London and New York: Routledge.

— (2009): “Multilinguality and a New World Order,” Ajit K Mohanty, Minati Panda, Robert Phillipson and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (eds), Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalizing the Local, New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, pp 268–77.

— (2010): “Multilinguality and the Teaching of English in India,” EFL Journal, No 1, pp 1–14.

— (2012): “Multilinguality, Marginality and Social Change,” Essential Readings for Teachers of English: From Research Insights to Classroom Practices, Aamrit L Khanna and Anju S Gupta (eds), New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, pp 13–24.

— (2021): “Multilinguality and Challenges to Education,” Education and Inequality: Historical and Contemporary Trajectories, Vikas Gupta, Rama Kant Agnihotri, and Minati Panda (eds), New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, pp 322–58.

Bhattacharya, Tanmoy (2022): “Awakening Inherent Linguistic Structures: Modification and Order,” Language and Language Teaching, Vol 11, No 22, pp 27–36.

Bolitho, Rod and Brian Tomlinson (1995): Discover English, Oxford: Heinemann.

Bourke, James (1996): “In Praise of Linguistic Problem-solving,” RELC Journal, Vol 27, No 2, pp 12–29.

Chomsky, Noam (1986): Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, New York: Praeger.

— (2001): Noam Chomsky: The Architecture of Language, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

— (2016): What Kind of Creatures Are We? New Delhi: Tulika Books.

Darder, Antonia, Marta P Baltodano, and Rodolfo D Torres (eds) (2009): The Critical Pedagogy Reader, 2nd ed, New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, Norman (1989): Language and Power, London: Longman.

— (1992): Critical Language Awareness, London: Longman.

Freire, Paulo (1971): Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Myra Bergman Ramos (trans), New York: Continuum.

Garcia, Ophelia (2009): “Education, Multilingualism and Translanguaging in the 21st Century,” Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalizing the Local, Ajit K Mohanti, Minati Panda, Robert Phillipson, and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (eds), New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, pp 128–45.

Heugh, Kathleen (2010): “Productive Engagement with Linguistic Diversity in Tension with Globalised Discourses in Ethiopia,” Current Issues in Language Planning, Vol 11, No 4, pp 378–96.

Honda, Maya and Wayne O’Neil (2008): Thinking Linguistically: A Scientific Approach to Language, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

— (2017): “On Thinking Linguistically,” Revista LinguíStica, Vol 13, No 1, pp 52–65.

Honda, Maya, Wayne O’Neil and D Pippin (2007): “On Promoting Linguistics Literacy: Bringing Language Science to the English Classroom,” Linguistics at School: Language Awareness in Primary and Secondary Education, Kristin Denham and Anne Lobeck (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 175–88.

Krashen, S D (1982): Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

— (1985): The Input Hypothesis, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Long, M and P Robinson (1998): “Focus on Form: Theory, Research and Practice,” Focus on Form in Classroom Language Acquisition, C Doughty and J Williams (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 15–41.

Mohanan, K P (2013): “Developing the Intelligence Capital of a Nation,” Yojana, pp 23–28.

Nassaji, Hossien (1999): “Towards Integrating Form-focused Instruction and Communicative Interaction in the Second Language Classroom: Some Pedagogical Possibilities,” Canadian Modern Language Review, Vol 55, No 3, pp 385–402.

Prabhu, Neiman Stern (2019): Perceptions of Language Pedagogy, New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.

Sohit, Savita and Shivani Taneja (2016): “Bahubhashiya Kaksha men Vyakarn ke Niymon ko Dhondhna,” Sandarbh, Vol 45, No 102, pp 25–37.

Stroud, C and K Heugh (2011): “Language Education,” Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics, Rajend Mesthrie (ed), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 413–29.

VanPatten, Bill (2002): “Processing Instruction: An Update,” Language Learning, Vol 52, No 4, pp 755–803.

Zareena, J M (2019): “Effect of Consciousness-raising Tasks on Grammatical Knowledge: A Study of Undergraduate ESL Learners,” PhD thesis, English and Foreign Language University, Hyderabad.


Dear Reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Updated On : 8th Aug, 2022
Back to Top