Why Grammar-based Instruction is Bunk
In recent years, grammar mavens and traditional language educators have been up in arms against a perceived attack on ”the righteous study of grammar.” Their basic contention is (as recently stated on a a pro-grammar blog), “Anything students need to know has to be taught, not caught.” These defensive claims always perplex me considering that nearly all language classes (whether at high schools, universities or private language schools) still spend the vast majority of class hours teaching and testing grammar rules. If anything, we have been too accepting of grammar-based instruction, and need to do a better job of showing people the truth (hence the creation of this site.)
I believe that grammar based language instruction underpins why so many people hate language learning, and fail to reach fluency despite years of concerted effort.
But I can hear the language “prescriptionists” yelling:
“If people don’t study grammar, how then will they ever learn to speak and write properly!?”
I have a one word answer for them, and I will say it in the Spelling Bee style they tend to love:
“Input. I-N-P-U-T. Input.”
So why is natural input the key to languages and not explicit study of grammar? Again, the answer is strikingly simple:
“Language ability cannot be taught; it can only be learned.”
Most schools, educators, and parents have come to believe that they have to “teach” children both native and foreign languages. This reveals a basic misconception about language, which has been thoroughly debunked by researchers far smarter than I, including Steven Pinker of MIT, and Stephen Krashen of University of Southern California. In a nutshell, their research shows that human language is an innate physical skill akin to walking. You were not “taught” how to walk; you figured it out through trial and error. Your ability to speak your native language is the same. Native English speakers learn to string sentences together through listening input (which starts in the womb by the way!), not because parents or teachers taught them about “subjects” and “predicates”, the meaning of Latin or Greek word roots, or English case inflections.
Ok, I hear the grammar mavens shouting again:
“So if the grammar-based approach to language learning is so ineffective, why has it survived so long?”
There are many reason for this, including ignorance, arrogance, and tendency to stick to tradition. But perhaps the biggest reason is good old fashioned greed. There is a lot of money to be made selling books, training teachers, running conferences, preparing students for tests, and selling cram school tuitions. (You’ll notice that many of the pro-grammar blogs make affiliate income through links to grammar books, test prep courses, etc…)
Oh, now I hear language teachers shouting (a group of which I am a member):
“Then what are we to teach our students?“
The main tasks of an effective language teacher include:
- Getting students fired up about the language
- Providing a cultural context for the language
- Giving suggestions about high quality input that fits your student’s interests, ability level and professional or academic needs
- Learning your student’s native language (this shows that you are interested in their culture and that it is indeed possible to learn a foreign language well in the way I prescribe here)
- Limited explanations about grammar and vocabulary
Wait a second, “Grammar!?” “You hypocrite!” I hear them shout.
I include #5 not because it will help students learn the language, but because:
- Most students (and employers!) demand it
- Some people find it interesting (and interest trumps all)
- Many students (especially in East Asia) must pass grammar-based university entrance examinations. Even though it’s an unjust war, you still need to prepare them for battle…
Related Articles
If you liked this article, you may also enjoy:
(or if you hated this article, you will equally detest):
Why Most Fail in Language Learning and How You Can Succeed
10 Things Your Language School Doesn’t Want You to Know…
Republishing This Article
Want to share this on your site or blog? You are welcome to republish any articles by John Fotheringham. For guest posts, you must seek permission from the post author. For John's articles, please include the following at the top and bottom of the article when reposting:
Copyright © 2010 by John Fotheringham. For more tips, tools, and tech for Mastering ANY Language, go to LanguageMastery.com
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by jfotheringham, Joseph Calpin. Joseph Calpin said: RT @jfotheringham: Why Grammar-based Intruction is Bunk http://su.pr/1RwSII [...]
Dear John,
I agree with your description of the problem. Many practical linguists came to a similar conclusion. Here is what Chris Moses, President of Flow English, writes:
“Excellence in English speaking and listening will never come from textbooks. It won't come from grammar lessons. It won't come from vocabulary lists. In fact it can't. It's just not possible! Why? Language learning is very different from other kinds of learning. We can't learn English deeply with the same habits and methods we use for math, science, or history.”
You stress on the advantages of focusing on input based activities in language learning. In my opinion, I-N-P-U-T is important but not the decisive factor. The proof: there are thousands of free, innovative, fun-filled, game-like, inspiring, interesting INPUTS on Internet and they are all underused and did not impact considerably the situation with the problem of learning English fast.
I think that we need a no-grammar, no-memorization and zero-translation method of learning English; but first of all we should determine the main features of the new method. Here are mine suggestions:
•Cross-translation is the main barrier in learning ESL and we need admit the problem and provide tools for its solution.
•The new method should provide environment in which the images of word blocks or situations are directly linked to English without use of native language. Zero-translation is the key to success and the new method should implement it automatically on every step.
•Fulfillment of the above steps will result in formation of the English language speech center in the brain.
•Explanation of the new method of learning ESL should be localized in major native languages. Without explanation in native language it would be impossible to develop new learning habits in both adult learners and teachers.
•The new method of learning ESL fast should be very cheap. The drastic drop in price could be achieved by introducing blended learning that combines localized self-study software and public online classes with 10-20 students.
Those suggestions are for open discussion and it would be nice if you will host this discussion on your web site.
Arkady
I think one needs to understand that the importance of grammar is not the same for every language. In the case of languages which have quite simple grammar (English, Afrikaans, Swedish, Chinese, etc) or languages which are highly complex yet also highly regular (Japanese, Turkish, etc) it most probably IS possible to 'pick it up' purely by exposure. Sadly, in the case of languages like German and Russian it is not nearly so easy. Sure, pure exposure is the way that young kids pick them up as a native language. But kids and adult learners are not quite the same cup of tea, are they? In the case of the latter, there is a real danger that learners will reach fluency with in-built mistakes (i.e. they will learn to speak broken German, Russian, etc.)
There are plenty of foreigners who fall into this group. I can think of a friend of mine (an Englishman living and working in Germany for many years) who understands everything, and who can always (or nearly always) make himself understood in German. Yet I have also seen him sniggered at and looked down on by local people because of the very crude mistakes that he makes. And I am certain that people find it MORE difficult to learn the correct grammar after having reached broken fluency…
Thanks for your comments Mearhead and Arkady. In my experience, the folks who "understand everything, nearly always make themselves understood, but make heaps of mistakes" are those who begin speaking too early. I am a big fan of immersion (I've lived and worked in Japan, Bangladesh and Taiwan), but I believe that is very important to get adequate exposure to the language BEFORE going to the country. Otherwise, you get forced to produce output with inadequate input. I believe that THIS, not a lack of grammar study, is the cause of your friend's "crude mistakes."
You mentioned that some languages have "simple" grammars while others are "complex." This is a common misconception that I also used to believed before going into Linguistics. Languages rich in conjugation and case endings may appear more "complex" to speakers of English (and other inflection poor languages), but the underlying structure (or "universal grammar" if you prefer) is the same. The differences seem difficult only when studying a language on a conscious, explicit level, which again is the major error I aimed to dispel with this article. Despite Japanese's "complex" grammar, for example, Japanese children pick up the spoken language just as fast as children elsewhere in the world. And despite English's "simple" grammar, most Japanese adults find it extremely difficult even after a dozen years of grammar study.
I do agree with you that adult and child language acquisition differs, but not in the ways you propose. The key differences are related to learning speed and psychological/emotional components, not the ability to learn languages naturally through input. Adults already have a full vocabulary and developed mental faculties, so learning "can" take place more quickly than children. I put "can" in quotes here because children have a serious advantage over adults: not caring about ambiguity or their inability to communicate. Most adults cannot stand the ambiguity that comes with foreign language environments, and the sudden inability to express themselves as they do in their native languages. Those trying to speak before they are ready are met with ridicule from native speakers, creating further fear of making mistakes. Children, on the other hand, are met with praise for even the simplest utterance. I believe input is the cure for these problems (as my broken record has said many times), but this input should happen BEFORE being thrown to the wolves.
I understand you, Jones, it is hard to comprehend that we speak in the native or foreign language correctly not because we had studied Grammar! Language skill consists of spontaneously being able to use prefabricated phrases and phrase patterns. This is natural to the native speaker and needs to become natural to the learner of a new language. Speech is a subconscious process and your knowledge of Grammar is useless since during speech one does not have time or tool for analyzing information. The only way to real fluency is to speak without thinking. Visit my web site and you will find there more information on this topic.
Regards,
Arkady
Hi Arkady
My own experience of learning German was as follows: for a long time, I could only speak slowly – or VERY slowly if I was also trying to apply the correct rules of grammar! However, I believe that knowing the rules acted as a kind of guide line while I was gradually building up the subconscious tools to speak fluently. When I eventually reached fluency I found that I was much more accurate than those people like my friend (mentioned in my last comment) who tried to learn the language by 'flying blind'.
I don't entirely disagree with folks like John (and Steve Kaufmann.) But I do think there is maybe a middle road to be found here. For me it isn't a question of grammar or no-grammar. For me you can learn language the natural way AND learn the rules of grammar as well. Why not?
Hi John
I hear what you are saying about getting adequate exposure before starting to produce output – that is certainly an important point on which we can agree.
As regards my other point, I think you aren't quite following me. I probably didn't express myself as clearly as I could have done, but if you read my first comment again you will see that I do NOT distinguish between 'simple' and 'complex' grammars – rather I distinguish between the 'regular' (including the highly complex) and the 'irregular'. (i.e. a language like Japanese is complex but highly regular, while languages like Icelandic or Russian are complex AND highly irregular.)
In my experience it is irregularity of grammar which causes most difficulties – not the complexity.
Irregular structures are difficult when studying grammar consciously, but the human subconscious brain is extremely capable of identifying patterns and remembering new content (no matter how complex or irregular). It is the conscious, analytical brain (combined with complex emotional responses to ambiguity, the fear of making mistakes, and the inability to express oneself) that tends to muck things up in language learning.
Let me comment on your statement.
“I could only speak slowly – or VERY slowly if I was also trying to apply the correct rules of grammar! However, I believe that knowing the rules acted as a kind of guide line while I was gradually building up the subconscious tools to speak fluently. “
You speak slowly because you have tried to add German to your native language and were able to speak very slowly because you were using cross-translation tool, i.e. you have thought and devised your phrases in your native language and then subconsciously translated them into German. It is a typical approach of every language student and that is why: the conventional language methods failed!
With the time you were able “building up the subconscious tools to speak fluently”, but very few people can do this because it requires faster cross-translation and is very strenuous on our mind.
Here is another famous ESL teacher who has half a million followers; A.J. Hoge writes: “grammar rules are not the key to speaking a language easily, correctly, and automatically?” http://effortlessenglishclub.com/get-the-advanced...
Read my above comment again and you will notice that my purpose was not to explain or justify your past experience in learning German but to offer a new approach which allows learning any language 4 times faster.
bridge2english said: "You speak slowly because you have tried to add German to your native language and were able to speak very slowly because you were using cross-translation tool."
—
Sorry, but I don't speak slowly. I can now speak and read German almost as quickly as my native English. What I was saying was that I USED TO SPEAK it slowly while I was learning.
I'd say it took me about 6 months living in Germany to reach basic fluency, and a further 6-12 months to reach high-advanced level. If you say there is a method which would deliver the same results as these in just 25% of the time…well…it's a nice idea!
I loved this article. I currently teach and work in Japan, and I am always blown away by how the number of real, important books that try to talk about how to learn a langage are simply dwarfed by the TOEIC test books.
Of course, as you mention, that style of question and answer is required on university entrance exams. But in Japan, it gets even worse because a high TOEIC score is also often required for promotion through the ranks in large corporations.
As a fellow blogger about language, I must say I love what you guys are doing. Here in Japan I`m working on fighting the good fight to teach students how to teach themselves a language, whether it be English or Japanese.
Ironically, the frustration point that learners of Japanese get the most is figuring out that kanji can only be taught and not learned. But illiteracy is one of the biggest barriers to getting good at a language and really exploring it like you say.
Thank you, Ryan. People seem to either love or hate this post which means I must be onto something important…
I continue to be blown away by how many of us are out there fighting to expose the inefficiencies of traditional language education. I have also worked in Japan and have seen the horrid effects of a test-obsessed learning culture.
With regard to learning kanji, the only method that has worked for me (and others I know who have reached full literacy in Japanese) is James Heisig's "Remembering the Kanji" (http://l2mastery.com/language-specific-tips/using-imaginative-memory-for-chinese-characters). Have you used this system?
I have enjoyed your blog and look forward to reading more.
Hey John,
I half-used the system, and I half didn`t. I did remember characters and readings through Heisig`s stuff, but I didn`t bother learning mini-stories for each one. I trusted my SRS technology to just remind me over and over again when it was time to review. Haven`t had a huge problem.
I, too, am glad to meet more people who are out doing this. They can be really hard to find in person, but it`s great to know that they`re online working as well.
Thank you for the comments on the blog. It`s young, but I`m hoping it will grow into something pretty nice. Take care.
Ryan
I think Spaced Repetition is also a powerful tool for learning kanji, and can definitely work for many people. But by itself, I find it a bit tedious and much prefer using "imaginative memory" as Heisig recommends. I have met people who find it too childish, but what's wrong with being a child I ask them? In my experience, being childlike is one of the keys to successful foreign language learning. And in general, exercising the brain's ability to create novel stories and mental landscapes is a great way to foster creativity and intelligence.
But as long as you enjoy the process and succeed in reaching your fluency goals, it matters not what methods you choose!
Keep up the good work on the blog!