Grammatical accuracy in a second language

[s_allard]

After writing a professional letter, most people here would have that letter checked by a native speaker. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, this kind of letter is inevitably perceived as some kind of reflection of the person. Obviously, we don't like to display our imperfections.

Secondly, we are not able to correct ourselves completely in a second language. As good as we may be, there may be some little detail that only a trusted native speaker can pick up.

Everybody wants to speak and write their target language accurately. After all, this is what native speakers do. (I'll ignore variation among natives for the time being). Nobody likes to make mistakes. We make mistakes as part of the learning process. Who wants to speak Tarzanese? We only do so when we have to.

The real issue is how to correct one's mistakes permanently. This is where corrective feedback is so essential. The plain truth is that it is impossible to totally correct oneself because many mistakes go simply unnoticed. Mistakes result from imperfect learning. Unless they are brought to our attention, we simply keep making them.

[Cavesa]

After writing a professional letter, most people here would have that letter checked by a native speaker. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, this kind of letter is inevitably perceived as some kind of reflection of the person. Obviously, we don't like to display our imperfections.

Secondly, we are not able to correct ourselves completely in a second language. As good as we may be, there may be some little detail that only a trusted native speaker can pick up.

Everybody wants to speak and write their target language accurately. After all, this is what native speakers do. (I'll ignore variation among natives for the time being). Nobody likes to make mistakes. We make mistakes as part of the learning process. Who wants to speak Tarzanese? We only do so when we have to.

The real issue is how to correct one's mistakes permanently. This is where corrective feedback is so essential. The plain truth is that it is impossible to totally correct oneself because many mistakes go simply unnoticed. Mistakes result from imperfect learning. Unless they are brought to our attention, we simply keep making them.

There may be a few exceptions, but in vast majority of cases I wouldn't. If I had to pay someone to correct every letter for me, that would partially defeat the whole purpose of learning languages.

Professional doesn't mean absolutely perfect. Ask those millions of non native English speakers. Sure, we should always strive to do our best, we should be careful not to mess up too much. (And sure, the English non native speakers tend to let out a much worse result than they would dare in any another language. But that just proves the point, those people are still keeping their jobs) Asking a native to check the usual letters is a bit of an overkill.

There is a lot of space between Tarzanese and perfection. Tarzanese won't do, noone expects it to. But someone regularly having their professional letters checked after B2 is wasting time and money.

[rdearman]

To be fair, even as a native English speaker I have people check my writing when it important. And I have paid them to do it.

[Hrhenry]

To be fair, even as a native English speaker I have people check my writing when it important. And I have paid them to do it.

I do too. I can't imagine handing a translation over to a client without it being given a thorough check by an editor.

Professional writing is a whole different ball of wax.

R.
==

[s_allard]

...
There is a lot of space between Tarzanese and perfection. Tarzanese won't do, noone expects it to. But someone regularly having their professional letters checked after B2 is wasting time and money.

I wrote "professional letter' and "most people here would have that letter checked" because I recognize that there are various kinds of writing and different opinions about the importance of correctness. Each to their own. I personally would be mortified to send an e-mail to a professor of Spanish and have that e-mail contain some glaring mistakes. So, I run that letter by a Spanish-speaking friend just to be sure.

The other reason for having someone look at one's writing - or any output - is to use this as a learning experience. We learn from our mistakes. When someone corrects my writing, I don't take it as a sign of my failure. Quite the contrary, it's a means of improving. Bring on the remarks and corrections. I may not accept them all but at the end of the day I'll be a better speaker or writer for them. My written Spanish is considerably better now than a year ago because of a ton of corrections. I probably feel comfortable sending off a short letter without having it checked but if it's anything more than a paragraph I'll have it looked at.

For me the real problem for many of us language learners is the absence of error correction. People are loathe to correct adults. So on we go making the same mistakes forever.

Edit: add two missing words

[Dylan95]

I've never done a "speak from day one approach," but I usually try to start speaking as soon as possible. Communicating with people is what keeps me going, and until I start using the target language to communicate with people my level seems to be incapable of going up. This works for me. At least, so far, I'm not able to learn a language any other way.

I wasn't wary of this before, but I will say that this does have some potential problems. I think this approach may possibly lead to fossilized errors, especially in regard to accent, and intonation. I speak Russian very comfortably, but my accent isn't anything exceptional. However, this could also be a simple defect of my personality. I'm by no means a perfectionist. It doesn't bother me when I make mistakes. I make a lot of careless grammatical errors because of this as well.

By not being embarrassed to speak like an idiot from early on, I made lots of progress almost immediately. However, this gave me a lot of cleaning up to do once I reached a higher level.

[neuroascetic]

For me the real problem for many of us language learners is the absence of error correction. People are loathe to correct adults. So on we go making the same mistakes forever.

Giving feedback is an underappreciated art. A few years ago, I was using heart rate variability monitoring to better understand my stress response. I found I had dozens of stress triggers (and compensating behaviors) that affected me without being consciously aware of it. I noticed that I would often get sympathetic activation (i.e., stress reaction) while receiving critical feedback (even when I wanted it). Over time, I realized that there were certain words or phrases that would, on some level, threaten my sense of self and trigger a stress response. Often, just using the word "you" would do this. I then began seeing the same thing in others during meetings. A conversation would get derailed because a bit of feedback was received poorly.

I found that if you avoid language that attacks the person's sense of self, the message gets across better. For instance, instead of "here's why you are wrong," it's "the issue with that argument is..." Sometimes it may come off as more roundabout way to make a point, but, in a way, it is. You are trying to avoid unnecessarily activating the person's amygdala.

In terms of receiving feedback, an attitude adjustment that has helped me is realizing that giving feedback is a difficult thing to do. So, when someone is giving me constructive feedback, I put myself in their position and realize they are doing something difficult. And thank them for doing something difficult. Situating myself in empathy takes me out of the mindset of seeing how what they are saying is threatening my sense of self. Honestly, this attitude adjustment has made a massive impact on my personal relationships, where my natural posture is to be defensive.

I'll add here a few excerpts from Daniel Coyle's book Talent Code related to coaching that seem pertinent and that I have found useful:

The teachers and coaches I met were quiet, even reserved. They were mostly older; many had been teaching thirty or forty years. They possessed the same sort of gaze: steady, deep, unblinking. They listened far more than they talked.
They spent most of their time offering small, targeted, highly specific adjustments. They had an extraordinary sensitivity to the person they were teaching, customizing each message to each student’s personality.

[Legendary UCLA Basketball coach John] Wooden’s observers noted 2,326 discrete acts of teaching. Of them, a mere 6.9 percent were compliments. Only 6.6 percent were expressions of displeasure. But 75 percent were pure information: what to do, how to do it, when to intensify an activity. One of Wooden’s most frequent forms of teaching was a three-part instruction where he modeled the right way to do something, showed the incorrect way, and then remodeled the right way.

Laws of coaching:
-explanation
-demonstration
-imitation
-correction
-repetition

[Ольга]

What are your thoughts on grammatical accuracy in a second language?
Haha, it is one of my acutest problems (+pronunciation)
How important is it to you?
It is highly essential for me. Actually, I noticed that my speech became more grammatical after reading several books in the second language. I think I should have read at least 50 000 pages in English by now. But there were different causes preventing me from doing that, as some lack of good literature, high speed of life, too many university tasks and home routine, etc. Only now (after 7 years (sic!!)) I have found enough time for reading in the second language I have been learning, and my grammatical accuracy improved drastically, but I still make mistakes and I think I have a tendency to make them all my life.
How accurate do you aim to be?
I know one professor from a local university who studied his second language from the age of 5, wrote some thesis in the second language and even was one of the authors of an international Austrian exam (now he is a director of a state university and my countryman), I think he probably makes fewer mistakes than a common learner (my goal to know the second language as he does because to know L2 as an educated native is impossible, I think).
Are you happy with Tarzanese?
Of course, not. I know my skills and knowledge are imperfect and I do everything to improve that. At least, I achieved some accuracy in writing. I desperately need to achieve a similar level in Speaking. I even decided to read aloud in the second language every day for about 40 minutes. I am not sure if it works because I am afraid I may memorize some wrong pronunciation, however, at least I memorize some interesting chunks, grammar constructions, collocations, colligations, phrasal verbs, etc.
Do you prefer Tarzanese or a never-ending silent period?
Never-ending silent period. Joke. Actually, I prefer to speak only to people whom I like, never mind the language. I think it will be painful for me to talk to rude, impatient, arrogant and selfish people even in my native language. It is only a problem of making friends. If you are communicative enough, you can make friends from natives of any languages and build up a circle of best friends with who you can turn yourself into a very talkative person. A language is not a barrier, believe me. I know many people who married foreigners and their families are more harmonious than families of two natives. I think it is because a native and non-native who like to communicate with each other usually are open-minded people with a good sense of humor and great patience.
Do you think mistakes are unavoidable?
Mistakes are everywhere. The only mistake which is unforgivable --- a mistake of a doctor, who killed their patient by a wrong treatment (and it really takes place in every country of the world, I am sure)
The more mistakes the merrier?
Sometimes mistakes are really funny when they change the meaning of sentences and turn that into a humorous story.
What do you think about other people's grammatical mistakes?
I don’t like when Russians make mistake in Russian because they were born in my country and had all ways and methods to learn the grammar of their native language. But I am really patient with mistakes of foreigners, besides some mistakes of non-natives look cute to me.
How do learner mistakes in your L1 sound to you?
As I said, I think it is cute, funny, and lovable.
What do you think about them?
I think it makes a person more charismatic and stylish. Like a famous actor. If the person’s skills and knowledge look like perfect, it is not interesting, because they have already achieved everything and probably spent 5-10-15 years to have done this. But, curiosity to know my first language, culture, literature, history, politics, and a foreign look on that have always pleased me.
What are your thoughts on grammatical accuracy in a second language?
I have tried to answer as honestly and fully as possible. I hope, my reply looks interesting.

[Cainntear]

What are your thoughts on grammatical accuracy in a second language?

I've been avoiding this thread for a month, because I could go on and on and on and on about this topic.

How important is it to you?
Very. To me, asking which parts of language are important is like asking which of the roof, the floor or the walls is the most important part of a house. Without all three things, you don't have a house. Language is made up of pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and idiom. You need to learn all of them to learn the language.

How accurate do you aim to be?
Very. Just as I wouldn't want to call a cat a goat, I don't want to ser when I should estar, and I don't want to use an imperfect in place of a preterite.

Are you happy with Tarzanese?
Happy? No. But I am comfortable using it when I need to (which is getting less and less frequent as English takes over the world.

Do you prefer Tarzanese or a never-ending silent period?
Certainly. But that's an arbitrary question, and I don't think it reflects a real choice. I always attempt to learn as much as I can as quick as I can, with a view to eliminating the need for Tarzanese.

Do you think mistakes are unavoidable?
No-one's ever going to get anything right first time, but I find that's often used as an excuse for not focusing on grammar. And yet (to go back to my earlier example) we don't tend to apply that same excuse if someone confuses the words for cat and goat. We'll all make mistakes and shouldn't beat ourselves up for them, but we should never...

The more mistakes the merrier?
...we should never make a virtue out of making mistakes.
The philosophy of "we learn from our mistakes therefore more mistakes means more learning" seems mind-bogglingly ridiculous to me. A mistake is a sign of a gap or flaw in your internal model of the language, and just means you have more to learn than someone who can use that part of the language correctly.

I think this philosophy arose from a well-meaning attempt to encourage lower-performing students. I tell my own students not to be afraid of making mistakes as a mistake is a message to me about what they need me to teach. If they hide their mistakes, I won't know what they need to be taught, and we won't be able to eliminate them. But that's a whole different attitude to "the more the merrier".

What do you think about other people's grammatical mistakes?
As a learner, exposure to other learners' mistakes is one of the biggest issues I have with classes and learner activities. I don't want to immerse myself in mistakes, which is one of the reasons I hate target-language-only classrooms: it's all well and good training people to feel comfortable speaking Tarzanese, but in a classroom setting, you're forcing several other people to hear it. And in classrooms following a communicative approach, often the majority of the target language students hear is produced by other students.

It really bakes my noodle when I'm in an "immersive" setting and I'm trying to use correct idiom, but my classmates would only understand calqued anglicisms. What should I do? Talk in a way they won't understand, or deliberately talk in incorrect language?

In general, I'm fairly tolerant of mistakes, unless the person making them is a little too precious.
I hate (hate hate hate hate hate) it when someone proudly says you don't need classes, "I learned my Spanish on my gap year travelling in South America!" then launches into a stuttering conversation in present-tense Tarzanese.
I hate (hate hate hate hate hate hate hate) it when someone reacts to an attempted correction (from anyone, not just myself) by defending absolutely incorrect language as "dialect". I've heard this from learners of Scottish Gaelic, and from learners of Spanish (typically rejecting feedback from Spaniards with a "that's the way we [sic] say it in South America.")

I hate these things in part because I don't like people who choose to be ignorant, but also because I know I'm going to be hearing these people make these same mistakes for as long as I know them.

How do learner mistakes in your L1 sound to you?
As a TEFL/ESOL teacher, I'm mostly trying to diagnose the cause when I hear them. I'm far more tolerant of them than I used to be because I hear them all the time.


Now, for some more general points that have arisen during the conversation:
even native speakers make mistakes
I hear this a lot, and it infuriates me.

I do not speak like a Victorian grammar book. I say things like "if I was you" and "there's 3 things I hate". These are not errors: they are extremely common dialectal variations in the language. Even the Cambridge English exams now accept the first as correct, although I don't think they're accepting the second yet. The fact that my dialect isn't the same as the schoolbook standard doesn't make these things "errors".

There are two categories of actual mistakes that native speakers make.

One: performance errors or "slips". When you're speaking, you get distracted, change track midsentence or stumble over words as your brain tries to catch up with your mouth. For example, you might switch from talking about a football team as a singular to talking about them in the plural -- e.g. United's playing well at the moment; they bet Rovers 4-0 last week. Such a thing is fundamentally different from a conjugation error because it doesn't show any errors in the speaker's internal model -- they just "slipped" in a one-off.

Two: writing errors. They're, there, their may annoy a lot of people, but writing is an abstraction; it's not language per se: it's a picture of language. The fact that natives so often mix them up shows us that.

If a learner makes a native-like mistake, rejoice! for they may actually have acquired a native-like model of the language. If a learner makes a non-native-like mistake, however, that's something that needs to be fixed.

mistakes are fine as long as you can be understood
I have two problems with this.

Firstly, as a language learner I had grown accustomed to learner mistakes, particularly in language exchange groups and conversation circles, and I could understand things that foreigners said that my friends wouldn't. As a teacher, I've been constantly exposed to more and more mistakes, and I cannot gauge how well native speakers without my experience would understand the people I'm speaking to... and I certainly can't evaluate as a self-teacher how well my language is likely to be understood, so you can't use that as a reason for not correcting a student or a language partner.

Secondly, language has a level of built-in redundancy and fault tolerance. We don't need to hear all the information to get the full meaning. For example, any time you whisper in English, you're reducing the number of phonemes you use by removing the voiced/unvoiced distinction. Young children may struggle to understand whispering, but it's rarely a problem for adults. We can also make out a surprising amount of language in noisy environments (e.g. beside a waterfall). But the more information we take away or obscure, the harder it gets to understand.
An error that is no barrier to comprehension in one setting may become totally incomprehensible when done in another setting or along with other errors; so the error is a barrier to comprehension even if not always and it needs to be corrected.

...which leads me to my final point...
you can learn the grammar later.
As you learn a language, your brain is always trying to build up a structure of how the bits go together. If you make a grammar mistake it doesn't always mean that you haven't learned the grammar yet -- very often it means you have learned the grammar wrong. Your brain will always be trying to construct a meaningful structure to organise the language in, and that structure is what we call "a grammar", and your mistakes become a part of that grammar.
If you say "I'll learn grammar later," you're letting your brain build up a false grammar that you're going to have to unlearn and relearn later, and that's a heck of a lot more effort than just doing it right to start off with. An appropriate focus on grammar at an early stage can prevent your brain from making incorrect generalisations that lead to mistakes further down the line.

[Chung]

What are your thoughts on grammatical accuracy in a second language?

How important is it to you?

Quite important and as important as having good pronunciation (i.e. readily understandable, and good enough such that listeners (especially native speakers) take you seriously), and drawing on a wide vocabulary. Cainntear's answer is pretty much what I'd say here.

How accurate do you aim to be?

I aim to be 100% accurate / grammatical every time, but obviously don't always get there. It's a bit like the hackneyed quotation of shooting for the moon to land among the stars.

Are you happy with Tarzanese?

Hell no.

Do you prefer Tarzanese or a never-ending silent period?

Both are bad choices for me. I like to start speaking from the start even if it means for the first little while I'm doing nothing more than parroting phrases, shadowing dialogues in a textbook or working with FSI's substitution or transformation drills. I can get by at the start this way but have concluded that to get beyond speaking ability at A2.1, I also need to interact regularly with fluent or native speakers of the target language.

Do you think mistakes are unavoidable?

No. Then again, when I'm making mistake-free spontaneous output in English on the first go 99% of the time I like to think that I'm OK. At my current level in Finnish, if I were getting flawless output or perfect comprehension on the first try 80% of the time, I'd definitely not be bothered by mistakes nor wonder whether they're unavoidable.

The more mistakes the merrier?

Not at all. I can't take anyone or anything seriously when there are so many mistakes that I've lost my patience struggling to understand what's happening or I've detected a serious problem in the other side and want to get away.

What do you think about other people's grammatical mistakes?

It depends on the mistake, and who's making it.

How do learner mistakes in your L1 sound to you?

See preceding answer.

What do you think about them?
etc etc

See preceding answer.