Dear researchers
your experience-based views are highly appreciated in advance
Yes it can, I have perfect examples of my students who have learned English at home, through songs and movies. Especially the communicative competence is way higher than at students who have learned grammar explicitly at school.
From my point of view, when students consciously learn a language in formal learning, it is difficult
to learn a language without studying grammar explicitly. But when students acquire a language unconsciously, the exposure to the language is high and students participate freely in informal learning, then it is not difficult to learn a language without studying grammar explicitly, but implicitly.
Of course it is possible. If one immerses in a language through well written beautiful books and if one forces oneself to love these texts then one finds oneself immolating the texts. The example of the invention of Arabi grammar is perhaps instructive. Seeibaweih ( سيبويه) set the grammar rule so as to MAKE SURE THAT THE QURAAN is not misread by later generations of Muslims. Of course the grammar codifies the existing accepted texts .He was not a native speaker of Arabic and he followed the linguistic principles of his teacher al Khalil ibn Ahmad الخليل بن احمد
From my experience, it is not possible to learn a language correctly without studying grammar explicitly.
Regards
Dear Farangis Shahidzade
I think that it is possible but it is not useful for scientific writing. Thus, it depens on your aim of learning English.
May I add my personal experience with Arabic. I should mention that I am a published poet in Arabic (al Adeb, al Adab, …). During my baccalaureate oral examination in 1954 in Minuf Secondary school. I was asked to recite lines from the famous grammar poem of ibn Malik related to the sentence structure. since I have decided to not memorize the rules, I offered them a line in one of my poems where the exception is ok and a line from a poem by another poet (of course) which is wrong. Probably because my poem was anti-regime, I was rushed out of the rum passing with flying colors. When your ear is musicalized, you feel pain in your ear when you hear incorrect words. As I memorized the Quran, I learned that it is a grave sin to make a grammatical error, for it is blasphemy to alter the word of God.
I think that most language learning happens without explicit training on grammar. Indeed, this is what Noam Chomsky meant when he pointed out the "poverty of the [linguistic] stimulus": there is not actually enough formal input to the child learning language to specify all of the grammatical forms that the child will produce. It was this diversity of linguistic capabilities that led Chomsky to popularize generativist theories of language use that suppose innate capacities to produce language.
Please note that I don't agree with the generativist position about how language works, but this is a very popular position in cognitive science that takes its primary motivation from the evidence which, I can agree, does suggest language use develops without requiring formal grammatical inputs.
Best wishes,
Damian
Yes it can, I have perfect examples of my students who have learned English at home, through songs and movies. Especially the communicative competence is way higher than at students who have learned grammar explicitly at school.
Yes, it is possible to learn language without explicit grammar knowledge.
It is very easy to learn any language without the need for rules. When a man lives in a certain place, his language differs from the language of this individual. The nature of life and transactions require him to learn the language without rules. Therefore, we see that this process of learning becomes non-voluntary.
Yes, it is possible to learn a language without studying grammar explicitly. How would children use language if they had to wait until they started formal schooling in order to learn grammar?
You can get to a certain point without it, but eventually if you want to become fluent you need to start studying and understanding structures. Otherwise you're just parroting phrases without really understanding them. I think the same applies to children growing up in their own language. Eventually they have to be corrected and understand why something is wrong or right.
Learning grammar, by the way, does not mean only looking at verb declensions and memorising them - something that I often have to point out to students when they spend the whole day learning and practising grammar and then come to complain that they're "not learning any grammar in class"!
Yes. I have lived (and worked) in a total of 9 different countries which has meant that I have had to learn to function in 9 different language. I have learned that it is possible to reach a high degree of conversational communicative competence which has then formed the basis for learing to write and read the target language. However, some countries are easier than others. Korean, for example, is very easy to learn to read and write on a functional level and only requires a few hours of learning. The problems come with the different structures related to the levels of respect due to to the person that you are communicating with. I have noticed that when any language is not used frequently, there is a rapid deterioration in all of the language skills.
My response depends on how we define "learn" in this conversation. I am a native English speaker who as a child became proficient in speaking it to meet my needs in an English speaking community without a conscious awareness of its grammatical structure--as do all humans as children learn to use a their native language (which does seem to support Noam Chomsky's theory of language as mentioned earlier in this conversation ). I learned more about the English language as I was exposed formally to its grammar in school settings. Such formal learning brought the language to my conscious mind which took me to a more sophisticated understanding of it that was necessary for written expression and the reading of it due to my awareness of its grammatical structure. With such a conscious awareness of how grammar brought order to language, I next learned how to read and write Spanish and French to a secondary school level but I could not understand much of them in spoken language or speak them myself in a fluid manner, since I was not in a community where it was common for people to use them for oral communication. So, in these two cases of "learning" a language I learned the grammar first which allowed me to have an understanding of its representational form as a written language but did not prepare me to "learn" it as a spoken language. Finally, in the late 1980s I learned siSwati (a language used in Swaziland, Africa) as a Peace Corps Volunteer in which I put most value in using it as a spoken language and not as a written language that required considerable mastery of its grammatical structure and therefore "learned" it more in a childlike manner by memorization and use of sounds without a focus on grammar. This brought me to a level of active spoken participation in a community of such language users that prompted me next to formally study the language's grammar (which I knew existed in all languages) as a way to move to a more SOPHISTICATED [key insight] understanding (and use) of it. Gist of my personal story is I that I believe we humans have the innate capacity to "learn" a language as a way of communication in a community of language users in a basic, functional way without a conscious awareness of its grammatical structure, but to really "learn" a language that moves the user to a more sophisticated level in which the language may serve in a much more complicated function to facilitate more abstract communication a more conscious understanding of its grammar seems to be necessary.
Interesting RG conversation! I am looking forward to hearing (and learning) more from others on this topic.
I think that languages were learned by humans before the notion of grammar existed. Or?
I think that Carla Kerr point of view it relevant, because depending on the use and context where language demands takes place, then you will be force to make better statements and express yourself clearly, so that will be the time in which you realice if you can still survive any longer without gramma
Yes, it is possible. There are non-native English people living in countries where English is spoken in the environment, they pick up English from the people without any explicit grammar instructions.
Hi, Abdullah Noori . Yes, of course it is possible. I still remember a saying, ' The fist best way to learn a language is to go and live among its speakers, the second best way is to read extensively.' If I want to explain this saying, I will add that integrating in the country of the target language facilitates acquiring the language.
It is natural to learn grammar as a child without any formal lessons. Learning as an adult or second language learner needs to get the brain 'coordinated ' to learn. Lessons help
Hi
If you have a basic skill then yes. If you want to teach the language as a second language in a school then no. Grammar is important but for my students who were mostly arabs, studying in English at first was rather difficult although they mostly had a good grasp of the spoken words and gained a level in ISlets exams. They did however by reading and writing assignments develop a sense of proof reading and this is a way in which I developed their grammatical expertise.
Learning a language without grammar is possible only in case of the mother-tongue. If someone wishes to learn a new language, then it is fundamental to understand the purpose of learning a language. In formal usage or for academic purpose, it is mandatory to know the grammar, but if it is for an informal communication or just to have a minimum level of conversation with the members of a community which speaks only that language; then in this case grammar is not required.
Academically it is difficult for a non-native speaker to learn a language other than their own. Grammar is the biggest hurdle for my students. They can speak good English but when writing it down it another story. With encouragement and reading they can become better but perfection is hard. even for native English speakers. As for academics they are different even from native speakers. their language is that of academia and even they can make grammatical errors when writing. Proof reading any written work is a must for any scholar.
Following the argument of Stephen Krashen, L1 speakers "acquire" language in natural environment without consciously "learning" grammar. L2 speakers consciously "learn" language with attention to rules of grammar.
Language comes naturally through auditory exposure but it is further developed as one studies the grammar of the language.
Language is by its nature made with grammar rules, however there are many ways of teaching language using explicit grammar .
For example you can't say I EAT DINNER
YESTERDAY AT MY PARENTS therefore the use of past tense is mandatory . You say I ATE DINNER YESTERDAY AT MY PARENT'S HOUSE. I think there are various techniques to make the grammar learning fun and interesting
DEAR Aida Mohammad Ali Bakeer , Nicole Moussallem , Philippe Dupont ,
Aina Appova,Aina Appova Mohamed El-Hodiri ,
Kay Cheng Soh, Catherine Mary Abouzai,Imran Khan
DIFFERENT BUT UNIQUE VIEWS; THANK Y
No...not to truly become bilingual. They must listen, speak, read, and write the language.
Yes it is possible to learn a language without studying grammar explicitly. I have learnt 3 languages this way (German, French, and Turkish). I am not a genius man & I cannot claim that I mastered these languages but I can manage when a need arises. That's all!
You can learn language without studying grammer but i think you do not have all the skills like writing and reading
dear @Khaled Muftah Elsherif, ,Jorge Eliecer Hernandez Hernandez ,Cynthia Drumheller, Nizar Matar thank u for shating ur invaluable views
It depends on purpose of the study. For thoses who will study language as expertise, learning grammar is a must; for thoses who will study language as skill, learning grammar is optional.
I think it's one solution to learn a foreign language but the learner need's to optimize and improve others skills ( especially in written )
It is certainly possible to learn a language as an adolescent or adult without using a grammar book. But it will take many years longer and the error rate will still be very high, even if they understand you and perhaps look at you a little pitifully if you tell them that you didn't use a grammar book - principally. The grammar gives simple rules so that you can speak a simple sentence correctly even though you have never spoken or heard it before. Why not use a grammar book? That's not clear to me.
Meaningful usage and immersion are enough for those not needing writing skills, or not concerned with interferences. We shall take into account learners perspectives as L2 users and analyze wether formal grammar is a determinant knowledge.
Luiz Antonio Gomes Senna
n fact, it depends on the purpose and extent to which "grammar" is used. Since in the languages with Latin script, the script itself is not an object of learning for Europeans or Americans (as are Arabic, Chinese or Indian script languages), the practice of the spoken language is in the foreground for them, which in turn is a separate learning area of "understanding" in some languages.
This raises the question of whether grammar should be dominant or rather in the background, even if it is indispensable, for optimal learning progress. I made the experience in Japan - which however already two decades ago that learning the grammar plays a large role from the outset, in my judgement a much too large one. That may have changed a little today in the course of further internationalisation, but traditions of foreign language learning are quite tough. To answer the question that has been asked: If, as usual, a certain time frame is to be adhered to, I consider this to be very difficult and would like to answer the question with "no", because the practice of speaking as well as the practice of understanding is in the foreground if one wants to learn a language.
Hein Retter
Amir Mehdi
Of course you are right: there are the four basic areas of competence, speaking, listening (understanding), reading and writing. In some languages, "speaking and understanding" and "speaking and writing" are very different because the written language is not the image of the spoken language. Here it is worthwhile, in my opinion, to carry out comparative research studies which reveal something about optimal conditions for mastering these 4 areas of competence.
Hein Retter
DEAR Hein Retter, Luiz A G Senna,Amir Mehdi THANKS FOR SHARING GREAT VIEWS
Farangis Shahidzade
Dear Farangis Shahidzade, I have to thank - for your friendly words and the comments of the mentioned colleagues, thanks! Hein Retter
dear @ Hein Retter, thank u for active participation in my discussion. by the way, congrats dear friend onthe results of election
Whenever you learn a language you are learning grammar either deductively (explicitly) or inductively (implicitly). But learning grammar "inductively" (e.g through the context) does not mean not learning at all.
In fact, the more inductive the learning, the more you have to turn to your analytical skills. In other words, the less you understand, the more you have to figure out what it means.
Let me rephrase the question so that you understand it better: Is it possible to learn math without explicit learning of math rules as it makes one feel dizzy and insecure?
Dear Dr. Farangis,
My view point for this is depend on which type of E.language do U want to learn. Anyhow, it's limits with that if U want to learn a scientific and literature English language you must learn it with standards grammar's laws. And if you want to learn a popular ( social) English language then the grammars became less necessary usage. Nice morning with happy friday ( mubaraka) for you and all RG colleagues.
Best wishes,
Naseer Almkhtar
It depends on the language you are interested in learning. But, in my opinion, one must be well versed with the grammar as it helps the learner to grasp the language easily.
It is possible but could be source of many misunderstandings. Knowing the grammar and the culture is very important if we want to have a smart discussion with educated people.
It is possible especially when they use it in their daily life. However, most of them have difficulties in grammar. Semantically, their language is understandable.
In principle, learning a language without grammar is possible as rules of grammar are integrated and unconsciously learned through all skills of language learning. However; learning grammar is very essential for people who want to be competent in language.
We learned our native language without studying grammar; therefore we should follow the same way and that is the best way in my opinion.
Children learn grammar by listening and repeating the sound patterns they hear from what other people say, beginning with 1 word utterances/naming and gradually moving up to small sentences.
Based on cases I know, I could say that if, however, are based more on idioms, than in the language as such, so, could not expect a response 100% accurate, according to the context, because you learn the phrases, but not grammar.
Yes it is possible if you won't to speak or stand, but in think learning grammar make your writing english language very welk.
Regards,
In my opinion it is feasible but this method will eventuate in a lot of misconceptions in the future
It dependsyou may watch movie, listen to the radio. In the beginning you should just listen wnd acquire language like small kids, then after a year or so start speaking. Do not afraid of making mistakes.
Yes, it is possible to learn English language without studying grammar explicitly.
All the best,
Naseer Almukhtar
People have learned foreign languages many years before of the invention of grammar studies. It's evidently possible. Another question is if this may help; my personal view is that sometimes may help, but sometimes may be deleterious. It depends of how grammar is teachered...
The deaf language (sign language ) has no Grammatical rules. However, for any other language the Grammer is the backbone to know and understand or speak, read and, write, a language.
Only mother tongue is exempted from grammer. A person don't know about grammar, and sometime even not educated, but can speak his/her mother tongue fluently. If he/she want to learn another language, he/she will learn grammar also.
I think so, as many people learned the language from mixing and listening to others without learning the basic grammar, but this learning remains incomplete without learning the grammar.
In the process of learning a language, the purpose of leaning is totally different from one to another. Sometimes language can be learnt for specific purposes, examples here, students of different fields they learn the language and the vocabularies which are closely related to their courses. Anyways, language could be taught without the need of its own grammar but what kind of language will be?!!! Let's consider the language of babies, Yeah, of course children learn language due to the communicative situations , and without even know what is going on, but that doesn't mean they don't learn the grammar, no they learn the grammar but unconsciously.... my regards
That's depend on your defining the meaning of learn... for general used,.. just to be in contact with others.. the answer is Yes, sure... But for be professional and have the skill to write and read like whom originally speak this language.. the answer is.... NO.. Absolutely No..
Yes, it is possible to learn English language without studying grammar.
@DEAR Aida Mohammad Ali Bakeer, @lIjaz Ahmad,Hussam Ali Mohammed, Marwan Khaleel Yousif,Isam Issa Omran,,Nafees Mohammadباقر فليح عبد الحسن,Eman Kareem,Jahangir Khan,Enrique Bernárdez,Ivan David Lozada Martinez,Ali Taghvaie Nakhjiri,Karwan Kakamad, Ivan David Lozada Martinez,Naseer Almukhtar THANKS A MILLION FOR UR GREAT VIEWS
The reality is, first came the language and its usage, and then came the codifying of its rules, as grammar. We learn to speak our native tongue just by listening, after all.
And more than that. Languages have a way of changing, over time, which means the grammar has to follow usage. And even beyond that, grammar rules very often have to incorporate irregularities. For example, in French, there are more irregular verbs than there are regular verbs. This means that as hard as people tried to create a mathematically rigorous grammatical structure, they didn't succeed!
So, even though not knowing the grammar can make people sound unfamiliar with a language, or uneducated in general if they are using their native language, we can't take that grammar too seriously!
It is possible. People do it all the time. For example when they live abroad and get immersed by the language speaking environment. It also depends on the subject’s learning style. However, I’d say that adults tend to need grammatical explanations and teachings to fully understand the way a language works. I myself prefer to have a fairly good knowledge on the language’s grammar.
Dear Farangis Shahidzade:
Congratulations and thank you so much for asking this most important question in the context of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Is it possible to learn a language without studying grammar explicitly?
To the extent that this is still very much a subject for debate, I believe that it is worth going through and over some target principles and practice in Second Language Acquisition as well as some specific materials and methods as regards “learning a language without studying grammar explicitly.” In this sense, Krashen (1982) points out, “Grammar, as a synonym for conscious learning, has two possible roles in the second language-teaching program. First, it can be used with some profit as a Monitor. A second use for grammar is as subject matter, or for "language appreciation" (sometimes called "linguistics"). Thus, this author indicates, “Neither role is essential, neither is the central part of the pedagogical program, but both have their functions.” In line with this author’s statements, subsequently, any effective teaching practice and theory can be carried out in a pragmatic or communicative setting by adopting a communicative approach because of the following reasons (McDonough and Shaw, 1993:23-25):
(a) Students would be concerned with using language rather than learning about structure……Students would learn to use the appropriate language they need for communicating in real life and for interacting with other people.
(b) It would teach students to communicate effectively by understanding and controlling the relationship between language forms and functions.
(c) It would place emphasis on developing skills of discourse within a wide range of communicative settings. It would actively train students in important discourse functions….All the language practice would be presented in real life contexts and related to the students’ own experience.
In other words, students’ attitudes, registers, social varieties, cultural background, beliefs, habits, previously obtained by teachers in order to develop both a linguistic and extra linguistic environment which might become the most effective kind of classroom interaction in producing learning in each context.
Viewed from this perspective, when teaching students whose first language is not English, teachers will endeavor to get grammar information across to students by enabling them to map the structure of English language onto their own.
Bibliographical references
- Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. University of Southern California. Source of work cited:(http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf)
- McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and methods in English Language Teaching (a teacher’s guide), Cambridge University Press.
Best wishes,
Javier.
I agree with Javier Julian Enriquez if we are taking about teaching the first and second languages. However, in teaching a foreign language where the exposure to the language and its use are limited, we usually need to make some illustrations and teach some grammatical rules explicitly to guarantee students' understanding of how to manipulate and structure sentences to convey meaning and avoid misunderstanding. Acquiring languages implicitly takes place in early age with wide exposure to the language.
I feel it's very possible. According to me, grammar should be acquired implicitly specially at the early stage of learning. At later stage, acquiring and learning grammar can go side by side.
I guess it doesn't have its own methods. My wife and I had to learn different foreign languages on different occasions. She doesn't believe in grammar at all and learns very quickly. I need grammar as a key to the language right from the start. There are probably different types of learner for foreign languages.
I find it very difficult to not learn the grammar, but it also depends on what stage of learning you are learning about grammar and how you are being taught. Not being taught grammar at all or starting with grammar before anything else does not lead anywhere according to my experience. If you start with grammar, you might endanger your student's incitement of learning. Its the end of all enthusiasm. If you leave it aside or teach in a bad way, it will be bothersome on the long run. Therefore: start with the practical things, enable your students to go out and be able to go grocery shopping and talk about weather and where they are from, enable them to actually communicate and then get grammar in.
Learning grammar will help some extent but conversion and continuing talking to mother tongue English person is necessary
I couldn't agree more with Sir Enriquez; As Krashen(1982) suggests language can be acquired without explicit and tedious study of grammar.
To learn other language , need to communicate with the locals in the foreign country
In my point of view, acquisition and learning processes of grammar are complementary rather than exclusive, i.e. implicitly and explicitly.
One can answer the question with "yes". Younger children learn foreign languages without grammar. Adults can do the same, but need a longer time and live with the risk of not speaking the language correctly. It is therefore difficult to see why adults should be discouraged from using grammar.
In my opinion, language learning (only for dialogue and conversation) does not require much grammar. Because it is taught as needed by repetition and speaking.
But it is definitely needed to get a degree (TOEFL, etc.).
with the best wishes
Mr Rezaei Ahvanooei
Yes yes yes! When one mingles with speakers of a language, uses the language and becomes part of that speech community, s/he unconsciously learns it. The best way to learn a language is to use it like a tool.
It is possible to study the language without studying grammar explicitly. While learning the mother tongue children do not learn the grammar they just learn the language and start to use it effectively. So effective methods and techniques can be used to learn the language without explicit grammar study as grammar is a part of language and learnt indirectly.
I am also happy to confirm that it is possible. However, I would not recommend it to adults. If a grammar is at hand, it seems normal to me to use it.
Very clear that we can acquire it in the same process of acquiring our mother tongue.
It is natural that children learn the language in their environment without knowing the grammar of the language, for all the languages of the world. But mastering any language reading, writing and delivering lectures requires knowledge of the rules and grammar
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning