InterConnection between Language Learning and Acquisition

[luke]

How helpful do you find learning about your language (grammar / rules) in actual usage?

Researchers and academics aren't in complete agreement, but some reasonable ones would some truth in this statement:

Learning languages rules (grammar) is somewhat helpful for some students with some aspects of language at some point in the process. (Note that "some" is used 4 times).

What is your experience?

One video that discusses this topic is:


The written part of answers is where everyone gets more insight.

[Odair]

Whereas one can be fluent with zero grammar, one has to be aware of grammar rules in order to produce a text that is on a par with what is expected from a native speaker. All educated speakers learn grammar in school. If uneducated native speakers can't speak or write their own language "correctly", what hope can a foreigner have?

[BeaP]

I find explicit grammar instruction necessary. The question is rather: when and how much grammar should one learn. I think this area has improved a lot in the past years. We used to have B2-C1 grammars only, that wanted to teach everything about the articles, then everything about the pronouns, and so on. Now everything is nicely graded, when you're a beginner, you can read through a grammar for beginners to learn the most important things. You won't be overwhelmed.

Another thing that seems to be common in coursebooks now is that first you have to meet something 'in the wild', by examining authentic texts, then you can be made aware of the logic that's behind the usage, then you can try to practice the same thing yourself, preferably in a concrete situation. Learning solely from input results in a lot of grammar mistakes (in my experience), that the speaker doesn't realise, but they can be corrected.

I don't really like the expression 'grammar rule', because grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. Grammar theory is an explanation of the most common (in consequence, correct) usage. When the majority uses something, it becomes correct. Grammar changes. How can it be harmful to get an explanation of the common usage? How can it be harmful to get some help in putting new information in a system? The human brain likes order, it likes understanding.

What I don't get when watching videos like this is why do they need to think in extremes? Is is really natural to learn from input only? Children learn grammar at school, and not just terms and 'rules' in theory. They also learn a lot of practical things to increase correctness. (Native speakers with insufficient education often speak with grammar mistakes.) Adults who use a foreign language get feedback from others that often includes explanations. On the other hand, no-one learns from an academic grammar book and nothing else, these situations only exist in theory.

[luke]

All educated speakers learn grammar in school.

This is one of the reasons why I find it helpful to see forum member's native languages in their profiles. I understand privacy though. I'm a native English speaker. Although English has phrasal verbs and can be challenging from a pronunciation "what you see is not always what you get" perspective, I think English grammar is relatively simple. Although it was a subject in Grammar School, I never developed an appreciation for it and most of what I know about it has been the result of studying foreign languages.

I don't know much about the languages I'm about to mention, but I imagine them all to be far more complicated from a grammar perspective: Russian, Finnish, German, Polish, Hungarian, and their sisters and brothers.

My point is that some languages may be easier to learn without grammar and others may be virtually impossible without it.

I don't really like the expression 'grammar rule', because grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. Grammar theory is an explanation of the most common (in consequence, correct) usage. When the majority uses something, it becomes correct. Grammar changes. How can it be harmful to get an explanation of the common usage? How can it be harmful to get some help in putting new information in a system? The human brain likes order, it likes understanding.

What I don't get when watching videos like this is why do they need to think in extremes? Is is really natural to learn from input only

I always enjoy your well thought out posts. "Descriptions" is more accurate than "rules", and that's not the limit of your good thinking.

On the last point about "input only". The professor who made the videos seems to have a few goals:
a) The school of language he teaches at may want to "tune" or even overhaul their approach. He wants to influence his peers with current research.
b) Input and extensive reading aren't emphasized enough from his perspective.
c) With respect to grammar, it seems he believes sort of what you said. Start with simple grammars and recycle themes. He ends up in a position where he thinks grammar is more of an adjunct to making input comprehensible, instead of an end in itself. (Although smart people who become teachers are likely to like grammar).

One may not get those conclusions from this video alone, but he has about 10 in his series on psycholinguistics and vocabulary acquisition.

Finally, there's the "refold" movement, which I don't know much about, but also seems to be light on grammar. I'm curious if they find more successful students using their methods for languages that have simpler grammars. (If I were to have a hypothesis, it would start with that).

The poll isn't based on the video though. It was just the impetus that gave me the idea for the poll. So, no one has to watch the video to participate in the poll.

[sirgregory]

I find the more academic study (phonology, grammar, script--when applicable) to be useful at the beginning and at the more advanced level but less so in the middle. For me, the ideal is to learn the basics up front as soon as possible, then move to heavy input/output, then circle back to reference type books to brush things up.

If I were to draw an analogy, studying grammar (and phonology) are like sharpening a knife. The input-only people are correct that you won't get anywhere if all you do is sharpen your knife and never do any cutting. (And that is a common mistake). But sharpening you knife is not a waste of time. A strict input-only approach feels to me like trying to cut something with a dull knife.

[SpanishInput]

First, we need to define what we mean by "grammar". "Grammar" includes morphology, syntax, and even phonetics and phonology. But most people normally refer to the syntax part. Grammar can also be descriptive (how the language is actually used) or prescriptive (how it should be according to academics). Also, syntax actually exists in a continuum with lexis (words): A lot of what we say is actually pre-fabricated chunks. Unfortunatley, most grammar textbooks I've checked out treat syntax as something divorced from lexis, which results in artificial, isolated, out-of context, weird example sentences. Also, said books tend to focus on all that is possible instead of just what is likely.

The distinction between "learning" and "acquisition" is kinda controversial. Also Krashen's position that learning does not become acquisition.

True fluency means doing something effortlessly. To reach true fluency in anything, you need to automatize low-level tasks. For example, when you drive you can't be thinking about what pedal does what, or about how to change gears. You need those tasks in full automatic mode so you can focus on the road. Same if you want to type really fast: The low-level task of hitting individual keys with the correct fingers must become automatic.

Aaaannd, as Veritasium explained in a video, to reach that level of automation, you need lots of practice.



He explains that we have a "System 1" that handles a lot of tasks in the background. And these tasks only become automatic after lots, lots of practice. The fact that "System 1" filters a lot of information that never even reaches your conscious mind is the reason why Americans think they hear a /t/ in the word <city>, when it's actually an [ɾ] sound. Their System 1 has already established that [t], [tʰ] and [ɾ] are just allophones, or different physical manifestations, of a single mental concept, /t/. This is why learning to listen to Spanish is so hard: You don't have the decades of experience native speakers have that has resulted in their System 1 automatically identifying all the crazy variations of /s/ as /s/, and your own English-listening System 1, in other words, what you already "know", is interfering with acquiring the new skills. A healthy dose of explicit instruction on Spanish phonetics and phonology and a good dose of intensive listening (transcription technique) will go a long way.

And yes, I also think that, at least in the first levels, explicit grammar instruction should be limited to what can help input become more comprehensible. And yes, I believe most students don't get enough input, because they're too focused on explicit instruction. And no, I don't think a good diet of L2 input by itself is enough, just like a good diet is not enough to become an athlete.

[Querneus]

First, we need to define what we mean by "grammar". "Grammar" includes morphology, syntax, and even phonetics and phonology. But most people normally refer to the syntax part.

Mandarin speakers aside (who focus on syntax patterns like 雖然……但是…… suīrán...dànshi...), I find most people normally refer to the morphology part when they think "grammar".

[BeaP]

Grammar books have improved a lot lately. It's true that they used to contain strange example sentences, often quotations from literature, that weren't really useful in everyday communication. The communicative approach is not perfect, but its dominance has surely lead to more user-friendly grammars. Now a lot of authors prioritise level-appropriate, natural example sentences, the concepts are often presented in everyday situations, books are accompanied by audio materials with drills, dialogues or solutions to exercises.

This is an excellent Spanish grammar for example. It's available in monolingual and bilingual (English) edition. There's a third variant of the same book for American learners. Click 'download a sample chapter'.
https://www.difusion.us/shop/gramatica-basica-del-estudiante-de-espanol-edicion-revisada-2021/
https://www.difusion.us/shop/students-basic-grammar-of-spanish-english-edition/
https://www.difusion.us/shop/gramatica-basica-del-estudiante-de-espanol-2/

I don't think that most students sabotage their own learning with bad materials. My impression is that those influencers who reach the majority (YouTubers, teachers) often don't know what materials are available, what they contain, who/what type of student benefits from each the most. If a beginner learner searches for advice, it's probable that they'll use the wrong materials and provide another example for the rule: grammars don't work, explicit instruction doesn't work.

We're interested in language learning, but for most people it's just a task they have to do. The sooner the better, the less time they need to spend on it, the better. They don't need over-complicated theories, softwares, mining for materials. They should be given 1-2 good resources that they can stick to. Of course, in their free time it's really good if they watch videos / Tv series or read articles / novels. I'm all for input, but we need to admit that learning through input is extremely time-consuming. That's the biggest disadvantage of the method. Explicit instruction saves time.

[Cainntear]

And yes, I also think that, at least in the first levels, explicit grammar instruction should be limited to what can help input become more comprehensible.

That's actually quite a vague statement, because... well... is there any limit to what makes input become more comprehensible? There's a law of diminishing returns, clearly -- at some point it's comprehensible enough, and you don't feel the need to do anything else to make it more comprehensible.

Also, I personally believe that productive skills make input more comprehensible, so even in a production-heavy, grammar-heavy class, I am technically limiting my instruction to what can help input become more comprehensible (in my opinion).

The core message, stripping away all the jargon, is not to overload the student. Teaching is only teaching if the student learns it, so don't present more than can be learnt, regardless of which way it's taught.

And yes, I believe most students don't get enough input, because they're too focused on explicit instruction. And no, I don't think a good diet of L2 input by itself is enough, just like a good diet is not enough to become an athlete.

I'm very wary of too much input early on, though.

You mention phonemes and allophones yourself. How do we develop a new phoneme map? Can we do this by listening?

All of our perception of phonemes is filtered -- as you say, we don't perceive allophones (unless we are consciously listening for them). Our brains basically throw away all the data we would need to learn the new phoneme map before we can access it, mapping these unfamiliar sounds down to familiar ones, and disregarding the differences as "accent".

An English-speaking learner of Spanish receives a dental D (eg pensando) and perceives the D they're familiar with, which is an alveolar one. Then they receive a lenited intervocalic D (eg pensado) and they perceive the voice TH phoneme. Lots learners end up with a internal model of Spanish where these two allophones are represented as different phonemes, which limits their abilities, even before you consider the issue of different dialect/accent groups.

But what if we learn by output? When the English speaker pushes themselves or is pushed to pronounce Spanish T and D dentally, their brain is forced to recognise that this is a meaning movement of the mouth, and therefore build a new phoneme map. Once the dental articulation is recognised as the core of the phoneme, the lenited articulation of D can be recognised as a variant of that.

Getting early-stage learners to learn this sort of thing may actually be more effective if we're actively avoiding input, as input can be processed with the circuitry they've already got, reinforcing their tendency to use the old, rather than building new.

[tractor]

Both introductory grammars and language courses where grammar is introduced gradually have been around for decades, long before the communicative approach became dominant.