Is vocabulary really necessary early on? (Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies) Language Learning Forum

Is vocabulary really necessary early on?
Tags: Beginner \| Learning Strategy \| Vocabulary learning
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies

30 messages over 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Arekkusu
Hexaglot
Senior Member
Canada
bit.ly/qc_10_lec
Joined 5169 days ago
3971 posts - 7747 votes

Speaks: English, French*, German^C1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto
Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian

Message 25 of 30

25 August 2011 at 4:53pm | IP Logged

RMM wrote:

I took a lot of language classes in high school and college, and when I came out of those classes my weakest points in the foreign languages I studied were 1) listening comprehension and 2) vocab. We studied a fair amount of vocab to be sure, but not nearly enough in my opinion to have intelligent, fluent conversations on a wide variety of topics or to read moderate to difficult material without very frequently resorting to dictionaries. This meant, for example, that even though I knew the declensions and verb conjugations, tenses, etc. backwards and forwards in Ancient Greek, I didn't know enough vocabulary to read anything without a dictionary (this after six semesters of university-level Greek classes, all of which I got A's in). Consequently, I only rarely read in Ancient Greek anymore because it is such an effort to do so. I really wish that all my language classes (German, Greek, and Spanish) had focused on vocab, esp. in context, far, far more. It's such a time consuming process that any head start on it would have helped me.

For most languages, I find that if I work really hard I can pick up on most of the grammar points within two weeks or so of dedicated study. Naturally after this, one still has to work long and hard to apply the grammar naturally and quickly. However, for me, grammar is by far the easiest and the quickest thing to learn. Vocabulary is the most time consuming and is essentially a never-ending process. To me it makes no sense to postpone the most time consuming task until later, especially since a lot of grammar will often become self-apparent the more familiar you become with a language. I find that if I learn a lot of phrases in a language early on, I quickly start seeing the grammatical patterns within those phrases. To a lesser extent, this is a the case when I use the L-R method or read also.

I still like to read up on grammar occasionally just to verify that I'm figuring things out correctly, but I really think that for me at least it's the grammar that comes fairly quickly and naturally, and the vocabulary that must be built up with effort over an extended period of time. Obviously, the latter would come more naturally in an immersion environment, but I've rarely even had other foreign language speakers to talk with, much less been in an immersion environment. I really don't see why grammar, vocab, listening, reading, speaking, writing, etc., aren't all done at the same time. I would think that would--for most people--be the most beneficial and even method. I think in the end, though, it's really a question of how each person learns best, and that's something each person will have to work out for his or herself.

If the learner's intention is to get a passive understanding of written material, then I suppose a passive understanding of the most basic grammatical structures obtained in "two weeks or so of dedicated study" may suffice. However, if production is to be any part of the learner's acquisition, if the learner intends to actually communicate with native speakers, then there is no doubt that grammar is essential.

The idea that you can learn all the grammar in 2 weeks is misguided. You may cover the basic grammar in 2 weeks, but mastering it is another story. For most people, this can take years, and for some people, it never happens.

The consequence of missing a word is minimal. You can replace it with another, you can look it up. The consequence of bad grammar on a small sentence can be devastating and completely prevent the message from getting across.
3 persons have voted this message useful

Марк
Senior Member
Russian Federation
Joined 4844 days ago
2096 posts - 2972 votes

Speaks: Russian*

Message 26 of 30

25 August 2011 at 5:31pm | IP Logged

When I studied English at school vocabulary caused much more difficulty to me than
grammar. It caused problems while reading and when speaking. When I wanted to have a real
conversation on any topic, it was vocabulary which prevented me from speaking freely and
explaining any thought.
So, I mean that grammar is necessary, but vocabulary takes much more time and effort.

Edited by Марк on 25 August 2011 at 5:33pm
2 persons have voted this message useful

Jeffers
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4697 days ago
2151 posts - 3960 votes

Speaks: English*
Studies: Hindi, Ancient Greek, French, Sanskrit, German

Message 27 of 30

25 August 2011 at 8:35pm | IP Logged

Марк wrote:

I assume you meant it was the lack of vocabulary which caused you problems. And of course when you don't know the word for something, you feel the lack of vocabulary more than you feel the lack of grammar.

However, that does not mean that learning vocabulary is difficult. A linguistics professor told me a long time ago that vocabulary aquisition is the easiest part of learning a language, and I believe him. I know people have argued for both sides, but they mix up time taken with difficulty. Yes, it takes a long time to learn a lot of vocabulary. However, the process is comparatively easy. You can study vocab cards while watching TV, for example; a bit of mindless flipping of cards goes a long way. And a lot of vocabulary is picked up passively if you give yourself the right kind of exposure to the language. Another reason vocab is easy is because there is instant feedback as you learn: the pile of learnt cards grows and you feel happy.

On the other hand, learning grammar rules, and learning to apply them properly, takes time. It also takes concentration. Those who argue that grammar is easier point to the limited number of forms to be learnt. However, that only applies to morphology, and that is like the ABC's of grammar. If you know the morphology of a language, you have only scratched the surface of grammar. You can easily learn all the subjunctive forms of a verb. Knowing which situations it is meant to be used in requires a lot more understanding. Even native speakers have difficulty with grammar.

To return to the point of the OP, it makes a lot of sense to focus more on grammar in the early phase of learning a language, if you can handle it.

1 person has voted this message useful

RMM
Diglot
Groupie
United States
Joined 5015 days ago
91 posts - 215 votes

Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Italian, Spanish, Ancient Greek, French, Swedish, Japanese

Message 28 of 30

26 August 2011 at 7:12am | IP Logged

Arekkusu wrote:

The idea that you can learn all the grammar in 2 weeks is misguided. You may cover the basic grammar in 2 weeks, but mastering it is another story. For most people, this can take years, and for some people, it never happens.

The consequence of missing a word is minimal. You can replace it with another, you can look it up. The consequence of bad grammar on a small sentence can be devastating and completely prevent the message from getting across.

As I said in my first post: "Naturally after this, one still has to work long and hard to apply the grammar naturally and quickly." I was never attempting to claim that you can master grammar in two weeks. That would be a ridiculous claim. I merely meant you can learn the rules in around that time if you work very hard at. That, of course, will not be enough. After all, you can't pause for a minute drawing to mind the exact rules of grammar before every sentence that you say or write. You have to get used to the language enough that you can apply these rules without much effort. And, of course, you would have to start thoroughly using this grammatical knowledge and still occasionally review over the rules, if you want to remember these grammatical rules more than a couple of weeks later.

For me (and for the people who make many of the most popular foreign language programs out there too from what I have seen), this is best done by being exposed to words, phrases, sentences, dialogues, short stories, and (in the case of L-R) full audio books, even very early in the learning process. I would think that people would generally remember grammatical rules and be able to use them more naturally too by seeing them in context, rather than by beginning with an in depth study of grammar. Perhaps so many people agree with you on this board because this is a gathering place for people who largely really like to study languages, so for them grammar might be fun. For most people, starting out with grammar study instead of with a lot of exposure to the larger language would be quite boring and not very helpful (and it might even chase them away from the language). If you love grammar or if you have a lot of trouble with it, then that's great to focus on it more specifically and totally at the start if you wish. I enjoy it too sometimes, but this would be a detrimental way to begin learning for a lot of other people, including me.

You say the consequences of missing a word is minimal. I agree if all that you care about is speaking, since you can usually come up with a simpler word to use in its place (though, you can usually use a simpler grammatical construction too, after all, if you don't remember all the grammar rules well). But if your vocabulary is very small, than you will not understand what people are saying to you very well at all. I really don't understand how you can think picking up thousands of words is easy unless you really are in an immersion environment. For me, at any rate, something that takes a really long time to learn is something that is hard to do, because you have to stick with it and keep working on it regardless of whether you feel like moving on to something new or not. I suppose some people are good at picking up large amount of vocabulary very swiftly and naturally. But at the same time, I tell you there are also people who find it reasonably easy to pick up grammar fairly quickly and naturally too from context (but preferable supplemented with some formal grammar study too). And since there are far fewer grammatical rules than vocabulary words, this makes grammar seem easier for these people. This doesn't mean that the person's grammar will be bad. What it really means is that their grammar will often be more idiomatic because they learned from the language itself (rather than being fixated on just learning grammar from the get-go before they really have any familiarity with the language).

Edited by RMM on 26 August 2011 at 7:54am
2 persons have voted this message useful

RMM
Diglot
Groupie
United States
Joined 5015 days ago
91 posts - 215 votes

Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Italian, Spanish, Ancient Greek, French, Swedish, Japanese

Message 29 of 30

26 August 2011 at 8:29am | IP Logged

TrentBooks wrote:

My initial premise was that vocabulary come while studying grammar, as well as the notion that having a
solid grasp of grammar actually helps build vocabulary by allowing earlier meaningful conversations with
natives.

For those of you in the "vocabulary first" camp, how (and when) do you go about learning grammar? It has
to come at some point, and my experience tells me it won't come naturally with the same ease that
vocabulary will. I'm curious how you address this.

I like to learn a lot of useful phrases/sentences early on. In addition to this, more recently, I've become very fond of the L-R method. After this level of exposure to the language, I can usually figure out some of the grammar myself. If, for example, I have already learned a dozen phrases that use the word "I," then I will already have a pretty good sense of how to conjugate a verb in the first person singular. Massive exposure, such as with Listen-Reading, also means a certain familiarity with tenses, articles, and other grammatical forms, even when I haven't memorized them all. This sort of familiarity makes it much easier to remember the grammar once I do sit down to study it specifically. Because I usually find grammar to be somewhat boring, I typically just do a little at a time and intersperse it with a great deal of other (more exciting) language activities. I have no problem with using vocab lists early on (though I prefer to learn words in context and vocab lists are a little boring too), provided I don't kid myself that I actually already know how to use these words entirely properly yet. Since I'm in no hurry to speak immediately, that doesn't really matter to me.

Perhaps it really depends a lot on how fast you want or need to be able to start speaking the language. If you are very eager to start speaking the language as quickly as reasonably possible, then perhaps you are right. In that case, maybe it would be better to learn the fundamental grammatical points first. Though even then, I'm not sure what sorts of conversations one could really have with a very limited vocab. (I have, however, seen Benny the Irish polyglot's blog, so I know that it can be done--although I think it would be a lot easier if you have a certain personality type and I don't think that he actually starts with grammar either.)

I think that some of these disagreements simply depend on a person's preferred learning methods and learning goals. If you only want a basic proficiency, you probably can pick up vocabulary just through conversation with natives, as you suggest (provided you have the opportunity to speak with natives A LOT). After all, that is how people learned foreign languages for millenia, until dictionaries and learning guides and all that were written. I think that it would be quite difficult to get to a higher, more complex vocabulary with the language just from conversations. And after you get the basic words down, you'll be hearing new words far less frequently in regular chit-chat (so they will be harder to remember later on). So if one plans on eventually learning a language well and doesn't have to know it very quickly, why wouldn't it be better to learn more evenly, rather than focusing so much just on grammar at the start?

Edited by RMM on 26 August 2011 at 8:44am
3 persons have voted this message useful

jeff_lindqvist
Diglot
Moderator
SwedenRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 6697 days ago
4250 posts - 5710 votes

Speaks: Swedish*, English
Studies: German, Spanish, Russian, Dutch, Mandarin, Esperanto, Irish, French
Personal Language Map

Message 30 of 30

26 August 2011 at 8:51am | IP Logged

I think Arekkusu meant that although the amount of words is infinite, it's really a piece of cake to learn a new word. You just look it up and use it.

Grammar rules, no matter how "few", seem to take a long time to learn - otherwise second-language learners wouldn't have so much trouble with it. The haven't understood how the language "works".

Learn the grammar of your "level". If sentences with three to five words is what you're exposed to (in your learning material), what you can understand and produce, then learn the patterns.

3 persons have voted this message useful

This discussion contains 30 messages over 4 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.3115 seconds.