A:“You need to study grammar and do exercises do get good at grammar”
Me:“But there are people who get good at grammar without, or almost without studying grammar. On the other hand, there are many people who make mistakes in every word of every sentence despite intensively studying grammar.
A:“That´s how I learned English though”
Me:” I haven´t studied English grammar in over 12 years and my grammar has been improving constantly"
A:“I don´t have that much time lol”
His English is almost perfect actually but he´s been getting massive amounts of input for decades. How could he tell that his grammar improved because of exercises and not because of input? How would he know that exercises speed up the learning process?
I asked him to send me studies that prove his point but I´m still waiting.
I understand why people think that way but to me it seems like it´s just a very common belief and not a proven fact.
‘Studies show repeatedly that intensive grammar study and memorizing vocabulary are of limited value: Students in classes that provide lots of comprehensible input (e.g. methods such as TPRS) consistently do better than students in traditional grammar-based classes on tests that involve real communication and do just as well, and often better, on grammar tests. These students have acquired the grammar and vocabulary of the language naturally, and can use what they have acquired in real communicative situations. They are also more likely to continue foreign language study.’
Being a grammar nerd I tend to go pretty heavily on grammar but obviously not everyone wants to do as much grammar as I do. Based on my experience (with Romance languages), I will say this.
Noun and adjectival endings can be learnt by massive input.
There are quite a few noun endings that are (almost) always a certain gender. I have noticed that the extent to which these ending rules hold true is a somewhat of a disputed topic. I actually am conducting a study on this that, I will post on my blog (I’ll put a link in my profile when it’s ready (the blog), it should be ready in a couple of months.
The same can be said about adjectival endings, they tend to be pretty straight forward. There are a few adjective forms that have only a singular and plural form. Others have fairly simple formulas such as that singular forms end in a -o or an -a, plural forms add just a -s.
Articles, nouns and adjectives go together and I think they are some of the easier aspects of language learning broadly speaking.
I meant to say some other things as well but I think that will be it for now, since that is the only concrete thing I can think of at the moment.
Maybe I missed something while reading but this compares CI to skill building, right? It says " classes that provide lots of comprehensible input (e.g. methods such as TPRS) " but that doesn´t tell us much about if/how much grammar was involved, just that there was a lot of CI… I read some of Krashen´s papers but I don´t remember ever seeing a clear statement about how much grammar was taught in the CI classes.
The question is whether CI plus grammar would work better than just CI.
Maybe not, I was thinking along the lines of that you need to read up on grammar because there are certain things that you can not trust you intuition. I am a bit tired and this theory might be a bit of a work in progress but here goes.
In French there are feminine noun endings such as -ion where there is absolutely no exceptions to this rule. Same goes for isme and iste endings but they are masculine. These four endings are also very common so assuming that one reads and listens a lot they will become firmly ingrained as feminine (-ion) and masculine endings (-isme/-iste).
There is also a “masculine ending” -age but it has some quite common nouns that are in fact feminine (rage, plage). As I mention there are some endings that are so predominantly a certain gender that they don’t have (almost) any exceptions. However, the question is, how reliable are these assumptions. I think that is the million dollar question and what I am currently studying.
I’d also add that if I had directed 25 % pro cent of the energy that I have put into learning grammar into listening and reading I would be infinitely better. I tend to obsess about being perfect.
But as a small side note on the other hand I do like the idea of me being a lay grammar expert and in the last 6 months I have become more efficient. I have squandered a lot of time but I think it has more to do with a crippling sugar addition that I have finally overcome.
I´m a German tutor and I´ve been dealing with this problem a lot^^
In my experience, it´s a good idea to learn the rules with no exceptions and forget about the rest. I´ve been noticing how my students accuracy in terms of grammatical gender strongly correlates with their overall level. Advanced students can usually guess the gender of unknown vocab without knowing the grammar behind it, just like native speakers would.
I´m unsure about how helpful teaching these rules actually is but saying “remember that -tion is feminine and you´ll know the gender of hundreds of words” has a very positive effect on my students psyche xD
I actually think it’s all about input based on my experiences when I look up a grammar rule because I’ve encountered a sentence that confuses me. When I say this, I mean that the grammar impedes me from understanding the exact nuisance or meaning. For example, I look up a certain particle, and I look at all of the sample sentences and the given translations that are applicable. They issue is that while I now can go back and apply that to the sentence that confused me, I would literally need to do that every time I encountered that type of sentence. It means I haven’t internalized that X particle or grammar rule = Y meaning. Come to think of it, I’m not sure when exactly I have internalized each “rule” that I use, hear and read frequently. It just gradually happens and one day I realize everything with that pattern is clear!
I’m very interested in whether this constant looking back at grammar rules is actually capable of speeding up comprehensible input or whether you’re just better off using that time for more input and ignoring what you don’t know. After all, you’ll end up learning it as you internalize various other patterns. When I think about kids, they certainly don’t learn from grammar rules, but from exposure and experience.
I can’t remember if this is true or not, but I thought Krashen also had a theory that individuals learning the same language will internalize and acquire the same “grammar/rules” at the same points in language development regardless of particular grammar study. Please don’t quote me on that though haha
I think recognizing the grammar rules is more important than intense study. I can’t expand my intuition if I don’t know what to look for. My English mind won’t let me. If I don’t know what to listen for, I won’t understand it despite how many times I encounter it. That last claim is speaking from experience.
That being said, I haven’t picked up a grammar book in about two years.
" I can’t remember if this is true or not, but I thought Krashen also had a theory that individuals learning the same language will internalize and acquire the same “grammar/rules” at the same points in language development regardless of particular grammar study. "
I think you mean the “natural order hypothesis”
" I’m very interested in whether this constant looking back at grammar rules is actually capable of speeding up comprehensible input or whether you’re just better off using that time for more input and ignoring what you don’t know. "
How moch of your study time to you spend on that though? Probably not a lot, right?
For me, grammar studies help me identify the patterns that I see in texts. I am currently at an immersion language school in France, and even though I would pick up on patterns passively from books and conversations, it would fully click when someone helped me identify and define for myself what the pattern is. Having exposure to it beforehand made it easy to learn since I had a reference, and then I could use it (and even modify it) easily in conversations afterwards. A year and a quarter with this and I’m near fluent in French.
You mentioned particles, are you studying an Asian language?
I´m casually studying Japanese (as one does) and yeah, there are cases where I don´t get the meaning despite understanding all the words and I find that my (limited) grammar knowledge can help with that, what helps me even more than grammar is having dual subtitles or watching series that I´ve already watched in other languages but that comes with the drawback of limiting my media selection. There´s always a certain degree of “lost in translation” but there´s alot more that would get “lost in bad Japanese skills”.^^
Krashen mentioned that simple rules like 3rd person singular -s are acquired late, sometimes never. I´ve seen Scandinavians who keep getting that wrong despite being fluent or even near-native when it comes to everything else.
I suspect that students who study grammar will blame themselves when they make a mistake - they´re too stupid to get it, they should´ve practiced more etc.
Someone who ignored or strongly deemphasized grammar might be at the same exact level and blame their mistakes on lack of grammar study and conclude that grammar study is a must.
They could be at the same level with the same time investment but in both cases grammar “wins” even though we have no idea whether more grammar study would´ve had any effect.
I have the same feeling as you, grammar shows me what to look for but it´s just a feeling. The problem is that there are tons of hard-to-observe variables in language learning and our minds come with a myriad of built-in or cultural biases and fallacies that our experiences and feelings might not be worth much.
There are extreme statements like “grammar can´t be acquired without conscious study” that have been proven wrong but I don´t know how you could prove or disprove beliefs like “grammar accelerates natural acquisition”.
The thing is that you´re getting lots of CI so we don´t know if it´s just correlation. You might be right it´s just that there´s no way to know, like I wrote in my reply to DimethyK9 below.
I could use this video to “prove” anything. That grammar is useless (because my French is alright), that grammar is necessary (because my French is not flawless). If my French WAS flawless you could ask how much time I had to invest, I´d tell you “a few thousands hours” and you could see that as proof that learning French takes a long time or as proof that grammar acquisition is possible but way too slow.
I feel like we might not get anywhere without rock-solid scientific evidence^^
I’d be curious about the answer to that too. I think as others have said here there are some aspects of grammar that you most likely need to get an understanding of on which you build upon and infer using CI.
What I take the main message behind those studies to be is that classes that focus on CI are a better use of time for language learners. If you have additional time to dedicate to your studies then, intuitively, I would’ve thought additional grammar learning by rote wouldn’t go amiss.
I think the issue might be that both teaching styles overlap.
-reading a grammar explanation in your target language can be comprehensible input (might even be compelling if you like grammar)
-good explanations have example sentences. Reading them can be CI
-When you speak, make a mistake and the teacher repeats it without mistakes, it should have at least the impact of hearing the same sentence while listening on your own.
-Speaking practice is partially CI
My latin classes in High School were 100% grammar translation but they did contain comprehensible input. It´s just that being forced to analyse the role of every word and every prefix and every ending of every word in the most scientific way possible and being asked to memorize endings and vocabulary lists to pass tests should be considered a crime against humanity.
It´s a bad method but I learned more than nothing and I wonder if the little Latin I know comes from reading all these stories.
I am studying Korean so there are LOTS of particles. I believe sentence patterns are very similar to Japanese.
Generally, I spend anywhere from 1-3 hours a week referencing or peeking at grammar. This is still time spent looking at grammar instead of more input, and I am curious if it is better put toward more content.
Mostly, I just listen all the time, I read all the time, and I watch a lot of shows in target language (also listening). I used to watch more dramas, but now I REALLY enjoy watching talk shows, which funnily enough expose you to a lot more words and natural speech. I only use Korean subtitles while watching, but I’ve noticed I feel like i have greater comprehension with Korean subtitles than without them. For me, there is definitely a lapse in when things are said and when I comprehend them. I definitely understand your “lost in translation” feeling. The funny thing about watching things like talk shows is that the subtitles will often be wildly simplified because the speaker spewed a lot of nonsense between main ideas. If I compared this to dramas, sometimes 1 or 2 words would just be different in the subtitles.
I wish I remember how I picked up Russian grammar. Either way it was self taught. I believe I learned it more from a vocabulary approach than a grammatical one. IE, Он и его are basically like learning He and His.
haha