Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Not Studying Grammar

 Language Learning Forum : General discussion Post Reply
89 messages over 12 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12 Next >>
Jeffers
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4908 days ago
2151 posts - 3960 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Hindi, Ancient Greek, French, Sanskrit, German

 
 Message 81 of 89
24 August 2013 at 3:24pm | IP Logged 
JC_Identity wrote:
Why don't you let him think for himself.


JC_Identity wrote:
Don't take from me, read what Kato Lomb did.


Sorry, it looks as if A is B in your post. The more you encourage him to think for yourself, the more it looks like you want him to think like you.


But to take the actual issue of whether early grammar is helpful, I'd like to refer you again to the article about FSI's experience. http://www.geolanguage.org/archives/sla/gurt_1999_07.pdf.

Any individual can do experiments and say what worked for them, although that can never prove that the opposite approach wouldn't work. But an organisation like FSI is accountable, and they work with many students. On page 2-3 it describes the courses they run as "proving grounds" for any theory or innovation. For them, it is only a question of whether an innovation improves the speed of learning or improves the quality of the language learning achieved.

On page 6 of the pdf it says this:
Quote:
...some kind of explicit grammar instruction helps most people to learn efficiently. Some focus on an overview of the grammatical system early in a course also appears to make language learning more efficient for FSI's students by creating awareness of form(s) so that learners can attend to them when they are ready. If there is insufficient early focus on form, we have learned that learners may, indeed, risk automatizing ingrained errors...


Of course they are not talking about extreme levels of grammar instruction. They are talking about enough to allow the learners to get on with using the language.

So yes, encourage thinking for yourself. But also encourage learning from the evidence. One good example of evidence is the experience of people who have successfully gotten large numbers of people to "General professional proficiency" in 1100 hours of instruction.
3 persons have voted this message useful



JC_Identity
Triglot
Groupie
Sweden
thelawofidentity.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 4120 days ago
53 posts - 108 votes 
Speaks: Swedish, Serbo-Croatian*, English

 
 Message 82 of 89
24 August 2013 at 4:02pm | IP Logged 
lingoleng wrote:
JC_Identity wrote:
   By thinking independently and questioning for yourself, you will find the correct principle in the end, after all there is only on reality, A is A.

Oh my god, Aristotle, the law of identity, A is A, the real nature of identity! What an amazing thinker you are. A is A, that solves all our problems, thank you!


Congratulations to you, you just won the first prize for guessing that!

I have not come across a lot of people that are opposed to logic. Would you say that things are not what they are? What I am saying here is that the creator of this topic should know that no matter what people are saying to him or her, two opposing viewpoints cannot be equally right. One is right and the other is wrong. But some few people on this forum try to get away by giving arbitrary advice and saying in effect that there is no right and wrong, everything works equally good. But then again we have for example research suggesting that there is a principle of comprehensive input that has to be respected in learning. Now the creator of this forum has noticed something out there in reality about grammar that seems to point to one way as being the correct one, would you say he or she is wrong?
1 person has voted this message useful



JC_Identity
Triglot
Groupie
Sweden
thelawofidentity.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 4120 days ago
53 posts - 108 votes 
Speaks: Swedish, Serbo-Croatian*, English

 
 Message 83 of 89
24 August 2013 at 4:41pm | IP Logged 
Jeffers wrote:
JC_Identity wrote:
Why don't you let him think for himself.


JC_Identity wrote:
Don't take from me, read what Kato Lomb did.


Sorry, it looks as if A is B in your post. The more you encourage him to think for yourself, the more it looks like you want him to think like you.


But to take the actual issue of whether early grammar is helpful, I'd like to refer you again to the article about FSI's experience. http://www.geolanguage.org/archives/sla/gurt_1999_07.pdf.

Any individual can do experiments and say what worked for them, although that can never prove that the opposite approach wouldn't work. But an organisation like FSI is accountable, and they work with many students. On page 2-3 it describes the courses they run as "proving grounds" for any theory or innovation. For them, it is only a question of whether an innovation improves the speed of learning or improves the quality of the language learning achieved.

On page 6 of the pdf it says this:
Quote:
...some kind of explicit grammar instruction helps most people to learn efficiently. Some focus on an overview of the grammatical system early in a course also appears to make language learning more efficient for FSI's students by creating awareness of form(s) so that learners can attend to them when they are ready. If there is insufficient early focus on form, we have learned that learners may, indeed, risk automatizing ingrained errors...


Of course they are not talking about extreme levels of grammar instruction. They are talking about enough to allow the learners to get on with using the language.

So yes, encourage thinking for yourself. But also encourage learning from the evidence. One good example of evidence is the experience of people who have successfully gotten large numbers of people to "General professional proficiency" in 1100 hours of instruction.


Why are you taking what I write out of context?!? It is not fair to take bits and pieces and glue them together to something of your own choosing. I said that as a response to a comment by another person on the forum, directed at him about what he said to me.

Besides it is not about what might work, but what is essential. To understand what is at core of language learning a guiding question is to ask oneself about every aspect of language learning: If I were to remove this aspect would I be able to learn the language? If you do that you will notice that you cannot remove comprehensive input, but you can remove grammar directed studies. Now that should tell you a lot. You do not need statistics or to consult FSI for this. There is also other important principles that apply to language learning. One such principle is that all knowledge is contextual, which indicates that the majority of grammar studies are inefficient at best. But to understand that you would first have to prove to yourself that knowledge is indeed contextual. As for picking up a grammar book, it can help if it is done from context as you stumble upon some aspect of the language that you do not understand when you are reading for example. But this is not at all necessary.
1 person has voted this message useful



Jeffers
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4908 days ago
2151 posts - 3960 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Hindi, Ancient Greek, French, Sanskrit, German

 
 Message 84 of 89
24 August 2013 at 5:45pm | IP Logged 
You can't remove breathing from your life but you can remove a lot of things such as: toilet paper, showering, deodorant, chocolate, fun, sex, etc. Does that mean that your life will be better without them? Of course, too much chocolate is bad for you. Does that mean that a bit of chocolate from time to time is bad for you?

My point is that it is not actually about what is "essential", or about what "might work". It is about what does work for language learning. And regardless of what you say about logic, it is possible for two things which seem to be in opposition to be right. Let me ask you an old question: "Is it farther to Chicago, or by bus?" That is the same as asking, "Should I learn grammar or learn by comprehensible input?"

One final point: I think you should be referring to "comprehensible", not "comprehensive" input.
3 persons have voted this message useful



JC_Identity
Triglot
Groupie
Sweden
thelawofidentity.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 4120 days ago
53 posts - 108 votes 
Speaks: Swedish, Serbo-Croatian*, English

 
 Message 85 of 89
24 August 2013 at 9:13pm | IP Logged 
Jeffers wrote:
And regardless of what you say about logic, it is possible for two things which seem to be in opposition to be right.


Wow, I never thought anyone would actually say such a thing. I would only need to point out to you then that maybe the opposite of everything that you just stated is true. After all how do you know? How can you be certain of what you just said? and how dare you first condemn and then make use of the law of identity to state something definite. I must say, I am truly amused.

I think it is best to let the originator of the topic think for himself and judge what makes sense to him so I will withdraw from this topic, I get nothing out of it.

Anyway thanks for the advice on spelling, I always get that wrong.
1 person has voted this message useful



lingoleng
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 5297 days ago
605 posts - 1290 votes 

 
 Message 86 of 89
24 August 2013 at 11:13pm | IP Logged 
JC_Identity wrote:

I have not come across a lot of people that are opposed to logic. Would you say that things are not what they are?

I don't know, would I? Wouldn't I? Is hogwash hogwash or not, or sometimes yes and sometimes only amusing? Who am I? But more interesting, who are you? The inventor of reality? Reality solved 101 propaideutics for beginners?
JC_Identity wrote:
But then again we have for example research suggesting that there is a principle of comprehensive input that has to be respected in learning.

Another amazing thing, that the inventor of this banality got some fame in some countries. I am all for logic, and indeed: In this case the alternative, incomprehensible input, does not look very promising.
1 person has voted this message useful



Jeffers
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4908 days ago
2151 posts - 3960 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Hindi, Ancient Greek, French, Sanskrit, German

 
 Message 87 of 89
25 August 2013 at 2:44am | IP Logged 
JC_Identity wrote:
Jeffers wrote:
And regardless of what you say about logic, it is possible for two things which seem to be in opposition to be right.


Wow, I never thought anyone would actually say such a thing. I would only need to point out to you then that maybe the opposite of everything that you just stated is true. After all how do you know? How can you be certain of what you just said? and how dare you first condemn and then make use of the law of identity to state something definite. I must say, I am truly amused.

I think it is best to let the originator of the topic think for himself and judge what makes sense to him so I will withdraw from this topic, I get nothing out of it.

Anyway thanks for the advice on spelling, I always get that wrong.


You need to apply the law of identity to reading more carefully. Look at what I wrote: "it is possible for two things which seem to be in opposition to be right." I've added the emphasis to the important word so you don't miss it this time.

I am not arguing against logic, I'm pointing out that you are human and can make mistakes. Just as you missed the word "seem" in my post, and so totally misunderstood the sentence, you seem to think that different methods of language learning are incompatible. It is wrong to think that if one works the other will not work just as well. Can a learner not benefit from both grammar study and comprehensible input? Must they be in opposition? Many successful language learners would say no.

My belief is that a bit of grammar study early on will get you understanding native materials sooner. Instead of getting hung up on something simple like a verb ending (e.g. "is this a future or subjunctive?", and so on), you can focus on the more subtle aspects of language use.
3 persons have voted this message useful



showtime17
Trilingual Hexaglot
Senior Member
Slovakia
gainweightjournal.co
Joined 6083 days ago
154 posts - 210 votes 
Speaks: Russian, English*, Czech*, Slovak*, French, Spanish
Studies: Ukrainian, Polish, Dutch

 
 Message 88 of 89
25 August 2013 at 5:27pm | IP Logged 
I guess learning a language without studying grammar depends on how much exposure to the language you get. If you're in a fully native immersion environment, then it is probably possible. In any other environment, I think you need to study grammar.


1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 89 messages over 12 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version 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 0.4063 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.