Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

General discussion about learning languages
sillygoose1
Green Belt
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:25 pm
Location: USA
Languages: _
NA: English
C2: French
C1: German, Italian, Spanish
B2: Russian, Portuguese
A2: Japanese
A1: Mandarin
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=751
x 631

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby sillygoose1 » Sat May 01, 2021 3:42 pm

As a Russian learner, I don't really focus on grammar myself except passively. I wouldn't really want to drill down grammar in any language unless I'm going for C2/native fluency. Grammar usually comes naturally to me after hours of reading and listening, anyway.
0 x

User avatar
IronMike
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2554
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 6:13 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Languages: Studying: Esperanto
Maintaining: nada
Tested:
BCS, 1+L/1+R (DLPT5, 2022)
Russian, 3/3 (DLPT5, 2022) 2+ (OPI, 2022)
German, 2L/1+R (DLPT5, 2021)
Italian, 1L/2R (DLPT IV, 2019)
Esperanto, C1 (KER skriba ekzameno, 2017)
Slovene, 2+L/3R (DLPT II in, yes, 1999)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5189
x 7265
Contact:

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby IronMike » Fri May 14, 2021 12:51 pm

einzelne wrote:I see that American universities still use Wheelock's in their syllabus. I don't know why. May be this is institutional inertia. May be it is easier to organize classes that way: it's more comfortable to spend 50 minutes by explaining Latin grammar in English instead of organizing and interactive session. I think Wheelock's still can be used but you need to supplement it with tons of graded readers like LLPSI.

Maybe it is that Classicists are an older generation, and Classics departments are dying. Wheelock's is a known entity. The inertia you mention may be totally the professors who don't want or don't have the time to investigate a different text.
2 x
You're not a C1 (or B1 or whatever) if you haven't tested.
CEFR --> ILR/DLPT equivalencies
My swimming life.
My reading life.

User avatar
Querneus
Blue Belt
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:28 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Languages: Speaks: Spanish (N), English
Studying: Latin, French, Mandarin
x 2269

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby Querneus » Sat May 15, 2021 1:23 am

Beli Tsar wrote:The comparison to Wheelock's always seems unfair, too. Wheelock's just isn't a very good textbook, even for the method it uses! If we compared LLPSI to, say, Learn to Read Latin, a textbook that is well designed and whose users report excellent results, it would be clearer that Wheelock's vs. LLPSI isn't really a fair comparison of two methods.

I used Learn to Read Latin, and I can't help but wonder how it could be used in a classroom... The readings (all of them authentically ancient) are noticeably hard. It is an alright good textbook otherwise though. Maybe teachers tend to just give a couple of the readings instead of going through all of them... Regarding this type of textbooks, I liked Mary English's A New Latin Primer quite a bit better (just mentioning it because I never hear much talk about it in Latin spaces...).
2 x

Beli Tsar
Green Belt
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:59 pm
Languages: English (N), Ancient Greek (intermediate reading), Latin (Beginner) Farsi (Beginner), Biblical Hebrew (Beginner)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=9548
x 1294

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby Beli Tsar » Sat May 15, 2021 10:18 am

IronMike wrote:
einzelne wrote:I see that American universities still use Wheelock's in their syllabus. I don't know why. May be this is institutional inertia. May be it is easier to organize classes that way: it's more comfortable to spend 50 minutes by explaining Latin grammar in English instead of organizing and interactive session. I think Wheelock's still can be used but you need to supplement it with tons of graded readers like LLPSI.

Maybe it is that Classicists are an older generation, and Classics departments are dying. Wheelock's is a known entity. The inertia you mention may be totally the professors who don't want or don't have the time to investigate a different text.

Yes, I'm sure this kind of institutional pressure is much to do with it. How many of the top institutions use it is another question - Harvard used the (insanely intensive) Moreland and Fleischer for a while, and then replaced it with Keller and Russell's Learn to Read Latin.

Wheelock's, of course, doesn't have a hold in the UK in the same way: the fashion for reading-method textbooks, like Reading Latin and the Cambridge Latin Course, and their Greek equivelants, has dominated for decades.

I wonder if a lot of it is driven by the justifications given for learning Latin in the US - especially the argument that Latin is great for developing logical thinking and self-discipline. A lot of online discourse about Latin learning seems to be driven by two sides of a US debate - those who think that rote-learning grammar is good for you, like vitamins (who use Wheelock) and those who want to read, react strongly against that, become Krashenites (and use LLPSI)?
3 x
: 0 / 50 1/2 Super Challenge - Latin Reading
: 0 / 50 1/2 Super Challenge - Latin 'Films'

Cavesa
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4960
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:46 am
Languages: Czech (N), French (C2) English (C1), Italian (C1), Spanish, German (C1)
x 17566

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby Cavesa » Sat May 15, 2021 12:11 pm

Beli Tsar wrote:I wonder if a lot of it is driven by the justifications given for learning Latin in the US - especially the argument that Latin is great for developing logical thinking and self-discipline. A lot of online discourse about Latin learning seems to be driven by two sides of a US debate - those who think that rote-learning grammar is good for you, like vitamins (who use Wheelock) and those who want to read, react strongly against that, become Krashenites (and use LLPSI)?


This. I think one of the main advantages of Latin (depends on the point of view, but I find it an advantage in this context) is the freedom from the pressure on speaking, on "practical use". So, we can better appreciate its value in training us to think about the language, to approach at least one grammar logically, not based on conversational needs.

I am all for grammar not being the only thing you do, I see a lot of value even in Latin learnt much more with reading and real use on mind. But even if I now remember extremely little from my three years of Latin, the grammar structure experience paid off. If people say that Esperanto is good as a propaedeutic tool before trying the language you're really interested in, I think it is much more true about Latin. And not just because of the vocab, or just for the romance languages. I think the way of thinking about the grammar and seeing the patterns and the system transforms how you think about grammar in general. (But yes, of course I believe it should be followed with tons of reading, progressively gaining in difficulty)

And thanks for precising that llpsi comes with tons of exercises. It's interesting that one of the main "you don't need to learn grammar and do drills" arguments on the internet is based on lack of knowledge of the book :-D
.............
I dare to chime in, as it is no longer just about Russian.

While I'd agree with rdearman, that a tourist needs more vocab than grammar, I think this approach is a huge problem for the serious learners. And by this, I mean anyone hoping to reach at least A2. Grammar is no less important than pronunciation or vocab. And people neglecting it are likely to suffer much more at the intermediate plateau or any similar point, because all their semi-precise guesses, gaps, and fossilised mistakes catch up with them. The moment you want to speak like a normal human being and be taken seriously, you need to speak more or less correctly. Plus a good grammar explanation of a few simple features could reassure many beginners, who falsely fall under the impression that language learning is just about memorisation of sample conversations, therefore annoying and too vast.

There is also a huge difference between refusing to learn grammar and refusing certain ways to learn grammar. It is simply dumb and ignorant to generalise that learning grammar=memorising tables, or anything like that, or that you don't need grammar, or to stick to the "but toddlers learn this or that way". There are more ways to learn it, but it simply has to be done. Whether you learn it consciously or not, you simply need to use it.

And honestly most people I've ever seen/heard/read complaining about "too much grammar damaging their speaking skills" had actually not learnt enough grammar. If you make five grammar mistakes in a sentence, no wonder you can't speak too fluently or accurately. Fossilising those mistakes with tons of conversation practice won't help. They tend to rant about boring grammar tables and drills, but they don't actually do any of the alternatives either. They will keep being false beginners for years, rather than just do the workbook of drills, but they also won't do the alternatives like memorising 10000 examples like AJATT, they won't get huge amounts of input either (no, the one tutoring our a week and ten minutes of a podcast a day are not enough input). So, they love to complain about grammar, without actually having tried to learn it.

Input is important for everybody, but I don't think it is the most efficient way without anything else. However, there are exceptional learners, who can learn without ever opening a textbook (or anything like that. If you are vocally against any textbook, but then use a grammar workbook or kwiziq, you are not learning just from input). There are people, who can learn languages to an extremely good level only through exposure and practice. We have a few examples in the community. But I simply don't think most people are capable of that. I am not capable of that, and I am a rather experienced learner with high IQ, so I should theoretically have no problem. The huge difference between my passive and active Italian is a proof of the opposite. Not everybody is capable of learning a language well, with the right grammar, without looking at the system and the rules. And most people will not learn to the fullest of their potential without it.

So, I don't think the question is whether to learn the grammar of any language (Russian, Italian, Uzbek, any language). It needs to be done, if you want to really speak the language and not just parrot a few phrases. The question is how to do it, and which approach fits which learner. And to discuss that, people need to stop the nonsense that learning grammar=memorising tables. It makes any discussion hard.
10 x

User avatar
Querneus
Blue Belt
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:28 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Languages: Speaks: Spanish (N), English
Studying: Latin, French, Mandarin
x 2269

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby Querneus » Sat May 15, 2021 12:18 pm

Beli Tsar wrote:I wonder if a lot of it is driven by the justifications given for learning Latin in the US - especially the argument that Latin is great for developing logical thinking and self-discipline. A lot of online discourse about Latin learning seems to be driven by two sides of a US debate - those who think that rote-learning grammar is good for you, like vitamins (who use Wheelock) and those who want to read, react strongly against that, become Krashenites (and use LLPSI)?

I'd say the divide is more like, institutions (who use Wheelock and similar, and dislike active writing in Latin) versus students/tutors online and autodidacts (who use LLPSI and often don't shy from active Latin). It's very rare to meet anyone online who will defend Wheelock and grammar-translation in general. At best I've seen a couple people say "I'm a conlanger and familiar with thinking about grammar, so grammar-translation feels easy in a way", and even then they say LLPSI is great as a companion for actual practice.
1 x

Beli Tsar
Green Belt
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:59 pm
Languages: English (N), Ancient Greek (intermediate reading), Latin (Beginner) Farsi (Beginner), Biblical Hebrew (Beginner)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=9548
x 1294

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby Beli Tsar » Sat May 15, 2021 12:54 pm

Querneus wrote:
Beli Tsar wrote:I wonder if a lot of it is driven by the justifications given for learning Latin in the US - especially the argument that Latin is great for developing logical thinking and self-discipline. A lot of online discourse about Latin learning seems to be driven by two sides of a US debate - those who think that rote-learning grammar is good for you, like vitamins (who use Wheelock) and those who want to read, react strongly against that, become Krashenites (and use LLPSI)?

I'd say the divide is more like, institutions (who use Wheelock and similar, and dislike active writing in Latin) versus students/tutors online and autodidacts (who use LLPSI and often don't shy from active Latin). It's very rare to meet anyone online who will defend Wheelock and grammar-translation in general. At best I've seen a couple people say "I'm a conlanger and familiar with thinking about grammar, so grammar-translation feels easy in a way", and even then they say LLPSI is great as a companion for actual practice.

While I agree there is a lot of truth in this, there are other large groups (e.g. a lot of 'classical education' and homeschooling types) who will argue strongly for Wheelock and GT. They just don't hang out in the same places, precisely because they have different priorities in learning the language.
2 x
: 0 / 50 1/2 Super Challenge - Latin Reading
: 0 / 50 1/2 Super Challenge - Latin 'Films'

User avatar
Querneus
Blue Belt
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:28 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Languages: Speaks: Spanish (N), English
Studying: Latin, French, Mandarin
x 2269

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby Querneus » Sat May 15, 2021 1:40 pm

Beli Tsar wrote:While I agree there is a lot of truth in this, there are other large groups (e.g. a lot of 'classical education' and homeschooling types) who will argue strongly for Wheelock and GT. They just don't hang out in the same places, precisely because they have different priorities in learning the language.

Oh yeah, I don't come across homeschooling parents/tutors, like, ever! Interesting...
0 x

User avatar
Le Baron
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: Koude kikkerland
Languages: English (N), fr, nl, de, eo, Sranantongo,
Maintaining: es, swahili.
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18796
x 9384

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby Le Baron » Sat May 22, 2021 3:50 pm

I remember something I read in an old course book we used at school for German (which had accompanying TV and radio programmes, such were the days when the BBC did more than make cooking programmes and talent shows!). The advice was - paraphrased from memory: 'the key to learning a language is knowing lots of vocabulary and a little grammar'.

However it also said something else I very keenly remember: 'learn structures rather than just isolated vocabulary'. This to my mind is the key and dissolves the 'grammar or vocabulary' dichotomy. We all know that words in isolation get lost, so the word lists might as well go in one ear and out of the other. When you learn 'structures', which I suppose means common phrases/expressions, some idioms, common ways of asking questions and replying to them..etc, you learn both the common vocabulary you'll encounter among native speakers and also learn the grammatical structures holding it all together.

Hammering grammar isn't enough, but also knowing just words doesn't really cut it either. Sometimes you need a certain structure for the words to work and make sense. And also using these structures unlocks a lot of how a language works in general. There seems to be this strange view that you either need to learn grammar linearly, like you read a novel or you have to be some sort of maverick who eschews grammar and learns everything by merely doing. Both are wrong in my opinion. Grammar books are usually called a "reference grammar" for a good reason: because you refer to them for what you need, just like a dictionary is a reference book and not something you read cover to cover.
5 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3468
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8657
Contact:

Re: Do not learn Russian Grammar (Opinions?)

Postby Cainntear » Sun May 23, 2021 1:42 pm

aaleks wrote:I guess, I don't belong to the majority of this forum who likes grammar and drills.

As others have stated, it's not really a matter of "liking" doing them. But there is a problem that's rarely discussed...
I had no problem memorizing things like: ich bin, du bist, er ist, etc. And if a grammar exercise rather reminded a math equation to me, I might even like doing such drills.

[I've mentioned this several times before, but it's very relevant here.]
When I started doing French in my first year of high school, I was initially upset that the other kids in the class were able to recall the conjugations of être and avoir better than me. Then I noticed that the length of time it took to get an answer was roughly proportional to how far down the recited list it was (je suis, tu es, il est, elle est, nous sommes, vous êtes, ils sont, elles sont) and I realised that my classmates had all memorised the list, whereas I was attempting to recall the words individually. Then I also started to notice that we were given more exercises for the singular forms and less exercises for the plural ones.

I was learning in way radically different from my peers, even though the exercises we were doing were outwardly identical. That set up my thinking about teaching and learning for life: if you set a task that can be completed best and most efficiently in a way that doesn't lead to learning, you're teaching wrong. I was successful in French (eventually) because I had a strategy for actually learning, and my classmates didn't. They dutifully completed the tasks as set, trusting that that's what they needed to do to learn.

But the problem is learning grammar explicitly doesn't work for me as it seems to work for many people. In my case the explanaitions and drills don't lead to understanding and applying the rules correctly in writing and speech. So I have no choice but noticing grammar patterns, and making my own conclusions. Sometimes reading grammar books may help with the direction in which to look and think, but that's all.

One of the things that's ignored a little too often in discussions of grammar is that part of the goal is to help you notice -- if you know what you're looking for, you'll see it when you come across it.

For example, in Scottish Gaelic, the same verb conjugation is used for the conditional mood as for the past habitual. The same thing happens in English, incidentally, but I wasn't consciously aware of that. When I first learned this in Gaelic, I considered this something quite old-fashioned, and imagined it in a posh English accent. But then I started to notice how much I used it. I would be speaking to someone, and I would say something like this and BAM! awareness of something I had not noticed in over two decades as a native English-speaker living in an English-speaking country.

In fact, as I understand it, the grammar-translation approach was all about drilling grammar in order to notice it -- grammar translation was all about reading and translating from "authentic materials" in Ancient Greek and Latin, with the drills immediately beforehand targeted at aiding comprehension of the text.

Drill, practice. Drill, practice.

A major problem is that when passage translation went out of fashion, there wasn't anything substituted in that gave equivalent practice, and drills are not an end goal, so even if the drilling is done well, it's still only prepping you for something you never get to do, so it's not a complete learning experience.

I don't know where comes from my inability to learn grammar as "normal" and serious language learners do. Maybe I just don't have the linguistic talent.

Not your fault... if the course isn't leading you to use the drills in the right way, you're not going to spontaneously learn to do so yourself.
8 x


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests