Tobberoth Wrote:Yeah, the reason grammar dictionaries and grammar study has existed for so long is because it doesn't work. Only people who use AJATT ever learn Japanese, everyone else sucks.

Grammars were not really invented for teaching nor learning. Yes, there are many practical uses for the language learner. For instance, in our educational systems, grammars are used in a prescritive way, like Dragg pointed out, but there are many more uses other than that.

@Tobberoth, I really can't relate to your example.
You are attributing your (wrong) assumptions to other people.
What you said was only your unrealistical and pessimistic oppinion about the subject.
I was not aware of these things about verb conjugations and I never had any trouble to conjugate 行く and 書く.

And I'm not learning japanese to pass in some test.

@Jarvik, I can't agree more.

I agree with Tobberoth that "Minna no Nihongo I + II" is a pretty good definition of "basic grammar" -- I reckon that's enough that (if you have the vocab!) you can get your point across. The rest is just felicitous nuance :-)

mentat_kgs Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:Yeah, the reason grammar dictionaries and grammar study has existed for so long is because it doesn't work. Only people who use AJATT ever learn Japanese, everyone else sucks.

@Tobberoth, I really can't relate to your example.
That is only your unrealistical and pessimistic oppinion on the subject.
I was not aware of these things on verb conjugations and I never had any trouble to conjugate 行く and 書く.

More than that, I'm not learning japanese to pass in some test.

What's unrealistic and pessimistic about it? A good textbook include the information needed, exposure based on sentence mining depends on the person mining it, there's no denying that.

You say you've never had any trouble with 行く and 書く, that's great. But fact remains that both are k-godan and only one of them conjugates to -te form with って. In fact, it's the only k-godan which does such. Somewhere you had to actually learn that, you can't automatically know that 行く is different from every other verb. Either you saw 行く conjugated a whole lot, or you read/heard it somewhere.

The test was hypothetical, just a situation where you find out your knowledge is wrong. The "test" could be you talking to a Japanese person. If you answer "I'm not learning Japanese to speak to Japanese people" I really can't say I can relate to you at all.

activeaero Wrote:Pretty self explanatory question but for someone who has just finished RTK1 and is a complete beginner otherwise it's a term I see quite a bit. I most often see it in the context of "As long as you're ok at basic grammar book 'X' should be ok for sentence mining". I know the answer will be different for every person but I just wanted to get a general idea. For instance would it be generally agreed upon that if you've worked through Tae Kim's site and have a decent grasp of all the concepts presented there that you're at a good basic level?

Basic grammar might be defined as covering the requirements for JLPT3.

However I think that when people say "As long as you're ok at basic grammar book 'X' should be ok for sentence mining" it doesn't necessarily mean you have to know or be great at handling all of the basic grammar, but at least have some foundation.

If you don't have a foundation in basic grammar, then its better to start with books that have more grammar explanations (even if its just for sentence mining). Examples would be books like UBJG and All About Particles, or other learning materials.

You can ofcourse dive into non learning materials, but in my experience finding a good explanation can often lead to "Oh, so that's what it means!" moments, for stuff that was right under my nose before but didn't make great sense from context.

It is unrealistic and pessimistic that you are infering that someone that learned to conjugate verbs trought sentences would conjugate them the wrong way.

I'm pretty sure I never read any grammar explanation about 行く and 書く. I just read real japanese.

Please stop putting your assumptions as other people arguments. This is not being useful for this discussion.

Someone that can't even conjugate such simple things properly won't be able to take on a real conversation.

In a previous post I already commented that I once felt a "need" for grammar. I studied all about particles, but it was not really helpful. What solved my problem was simply more input of better quality.

Tobberoth Wrote:Somewhere you had to actually learn that, you can't automatically know that 行く is different from every other verb. Either you saw 行く conjugated a whole lot, or you read/heard it somewhere.

Which is, of course, the whole point of immersion. 行く being such a common verb, it's very likely that it would have come up in his 100 sentences. And if it didn't come up in the first 100, it would certainly come up eventually; ideally, you should avoid putting yourself in a situation where you need to use the language until you are relatively comfortable with it.

Captain_Thunder Wrote:Which is, of course, the whole point of immersion. 行く being such a common verb, it's very likely that it would have come up in his 100 sentences. And if it didn't come up in the first 100, it would certainly come up eventually; ideally, you should avoid putting yourself in a situation where you need to use the language until you are relatively comfortable with it.

Oh, quite indeed. Too bad that exceptions aren't limited to common words, my examples are however.

Tobberoth Wrote:

alyks Wrote:If you stick to textbooks or grammar rules to "teach" you the language, you're going to end up sucking at the language.

Yeah, the reason grammar dictionaries and grammar study has existed for so long is because it doesn't work. Only people who use AJATT ever learn Japanese, everyone else sucks.

Wait, you're completely utterly wrong. Foreigners have been fluent in Japanese for ages, many and probably the majority of them learned the language in a more traditional sense than you did. For all you know, you will never get any better than them. Your statement reeks of arrogance and overconfidence.

Read what he typed again. Read what you typed. Read what he typed once more. Read what you typed. Grammar alone won't teach you a language. It seems like that's what he's saying. I could be wrong, though.

As for arrogance and overconfidence, he's not the only one guilty of these sentiments in his statements .

mentat_kgs Wrote:It is unrealistic and pessimistic that you are infering that someone that learned to conjugate verbs trought sentences would conjugate them the wrong way.

I'm pretty sure I never read any grammar explanation about 行く and 書く. I just read real japanese.

Please stop putting your assumptions as other people arguments. This is not being useful for this discussion.

Someone that can't even conjugate such simple things properly won't be able to take on a real conversation.

In a previous post I already commented that I once felt a "need" for grammar. I studied all about particles, but it was not really helpful. What solved my problem was simply more input of better quality.

I infered no such thing. I brought up a constructed example to prove a point: exposure can fail, just like a bad grammarbook can. I never said you couldn't learn it through exposure, I specifically said the person in the example would have to miss 行く in his example sentences AND that it was unlikely. But it can happen, it's hardly impossible. For the less common exceptions, it's even probable.

Saying that someone can't take on a real conversation without being able to conjugate is very true, and more support for my idea. If you want to talk, you need to conjugate. So if you want to talk early, learn to conjugate fast.

kazelee Wrote:Read what he typed again. Read what you typed. Read what he typed once more. Read what you typed. Grammar alone won't teach you a language. It seems like that's what he's saying. I could be wrong, though.

As for arrogance and overconfidence, he's not the only one guilty of these sentiments in his statements .

I read what he wrote several times before answering, I always do. He wasn't saying "grammar alone won't teach you a language", he said thinking textbooks and grammarbooks will teach you a language makes you suck. Nobody in this topic has said using JUST grammarbooks will make you good at Japanese. The discussion is about whether textbooks are good for learning Japanese or not, and he clearly said it makes you "suck".

Great, Tobberoth. You should have written this disclaimer in your first post.
Now the important part of the discussion:

Tobberoth Wrote:So if you want to talk early, learn to conjugate fast.

This is where we disagree. I don't want to talk early. I want to understand early, read early. Talk, only after a year. So far so good.

Tobberoth Wrote:

Captain_Thunder Wrote:Which is, of course, the whole point of immersion. 行く being such a common verb, it's very likely that it would have come up in his 100 sentences. And if it didn't come up in the first 100, it would certainly come up eventually; ideally, you should avoid putting yourself in a situation where you need to use the language until you are relatively comfortable with it.

Oh, quite indeed. Too bad that exceptions aren't limited to common words, my examples are however.

Any exception that's not obscure to the point of uselessness will eventually come up in a total immersion environment. Sure, it may take a few years longer to learn the exceptions through immersion than through study, but I personally believe that if only one method could be chosen, immersion would be it. Ask anyone who became fluently bilingual at an adult age how they learned their second language; in the overwhelming majority of cases, they will say "I lived in X country for Y years", rather than "I took some classes in college and woke up fluent one morning".

Adult learners have responsibilities in daily life that make dedicated study a very useful, and possibly necessary, supplement to immersion, but ultimately, you'll never learn a language through study alone. Would your Japanese skills be as strong as they are had you never visited Japan, Tobberoth?

mentat_kgs Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:So if you want to talk early, learn to conjugate fast.

This is where we disagree. I don't want to talk early. I want to understand early, read early. Talk, only after a year. So far so good.

That's fine and all. My question to you then must be, what makes textbooks a worse source of this understanding than exposure? If you go through MnN 1 and 2, you'll be able to understand and even take part in most japanese day to day conversations, are you saying that wouldn't be extremely helpful to understanding and reading?

Tobberoth Wrote:I infered no such thing. I brought up a constructed example to prove a point: exposure can fail, just like a bad grammarbook can. I never said you couldn't learn it through exposure, I specifically said the person in the example would have to miss 行く in his example sentences AND that it was unlikely. But it can happen, it's hardly impossible. For the less common exceptions, it's even probable.

Saying that someone can't take on a real conversation without being able to conjugate is very true, and more support for my idea. If you want to talk, you need to conjugate. So if you want to talk early, learn to conjugate fast.

Your example only proved what you wanted it to prove; Learning the grammar rules can help you pass a quiz (one with a trick question, too). You gave no indication of the students learning abilities or work ethic. So there is no real way to predict an outcome is there?

There is no such thing as 100% immersion. Eventually, you're gonna have to pick up a book. I myself, have tried to learn grammar through context. Some of I get, some of it requires an outside source. There is no 100% traditional method. Eventually you're gonna have to study on your own. In fact, in a traditional setting, that's what you end up doing, more often than not (if you want to make the grade that is). And you know what, eventually you're gonna have to pick up a book.

The only real differences between this "immersion" method and traditional schooling are the absence of the classroom, and focus on ear training. Unless you have some super(ior) teacher who has time to wait on your every learning need, this "immersion" method is "sometimes" the better road to go. I say "sometimes" because there a those who learn better in classroom environment. Of course, "sometimes" they are not really learning better in the classroom they are just more motivated by the grade.

If you disagree, look at home schooler's as an example. They represent the true potential of a classroom environment as the teacher is always at arms length. How many people have that though?

Captain_Thunder Wrote:Would your Japanese skills be as strong as they are had you never visited Japan, Tobberoth?

While I would love to say yes to strenghten my position in this argument, of course I can not. The reason I learned Japanese so fast and so well, is of course in large part due to me staying in Japan, especially living together with my girlfriend who I speak nothing but Japanese with. Exposure is, like I said before, fundamental. But in all honesty, that isn't what I'm arguing here. I'm saying textbooks and grammarbooks are a great source of learning. I'm saying it gives results much faster than exposure. I'm admitting that exposure gives BETTER results in the long run, but for beginners, that isn't much of a help.

I guess what I'm saying is, when you're starting out, use textbooks and grammar books. Learn the basics and learn them quickly. Then you have all the time in the world to use exposure for the rest. You'll already have the basics down so you can basically start mining from anything. You'll be able to converse in japanese well, a GREAT way to learn better Japanese. If I couldn't talk Japanese well to my girlfriend, how would me being with her help my Japanese at all? If it hadn't been for textbooks studies when I started out, my year in Japan wouldn't have helped as much as it did. The basics I learned was the key I used to open the door of immersion and exposure.

kazelee Wrote:There is no such thing as 100% immersion. Eventually, you're gonna have to pick up a book. I myself, have tried to learn grammar through context. Some of I get, some of it requires an outside source. There is no 100% traditional method. Eventually you're gonna have to study on your own. In fact, in a traditional setting, that's what you end up doing, more often than not (if you want to make the grade that is). And you know what, eventually you're gonna have to pick up a book.

The only real differences between this "immersion" method and traditional schooling are the absence of the classroom, and focus on ear training. Unless you have some super(ior) teacher who has time to wait on your every learning need, this "immersion" method is "sometimes" the better road to go. I say "sometimes" because there a those who learn better in classroom environment. Of course, "sometimes" they are not really learning better in the classroom they are just more motivated by the grade.

If you disagree, look at home schooler's as an example. They represent the true potential of a classroom environment as the teacher is always at arms length. How many people have that though?

You're sort of twisting the argument to go from textbook study to classroom study, in my opinion two different things. You can self-study using the textbooks as a source of information and that's completely different as to having it as your main book in a classroom.

Tobberoth Wrote:

Captain_Thunder Wrote:Would your Japanese skills be as strong as they are had you never visited Japan, Tobberoth?

While I would love to say yes to strenghten my position in this argument, of course I can not. The reason I learned Japanese so fast and so well, is of course in large part due to me staying in Japan, especially living together with my girlfriend who I speak nothing but Japanese with. Exposure is, like I said before, fundamental. But in all honesty, that isn't what I'm arguing here. I'm saying textbooks and grammarbooks are a great source of learning. I'm saying it gives results much faster than exposure. I'm admitting that exposure gives BETTER results in the long run, but for beginners, that isn't much of a help.

I guess what I'm saying is, when you're starting out, use textbooks and grammar books. Learn the basics and learn them quickly. Then you have all the time in the world to use exposure for the rest. You'll already have the basics down so you can basically start mining from anything. You'll be able to converse in japanese well, a GREAT way to learn better Japanese. If I couldn't talk Japanese well to my girlfriend, how would me being with her help my Japanese at all? If it hadn't been for textbooks studies when I started out, my year in Japan wouldn't have helped as much as it did. The basics I learned was the key I used to open the door of immersion and exposure.

I would say that we are in agreement, for the most part.

I would like to raise a question about the retention rate of material learned solely through textbooks/instruction, though. Personally, I can read a grammar explanation, feel like I know it, and promptly forget about it the next day when I encounter the same grammar; I'm sure others have had the same experiences. I have a much better rate of retention and understanding when I've heard something in the wild a few times, and finally make a connection on my own, especially with vocabulary. Concentrated textbook study might help you learn a specific concept faster than waiting for it to appear in your immersion environment several times, but it takes quite a bit of effort to ingrain the concept into your long-term memory without real-world context.

But like I said above, I mostly agree with you . I'm on a bit of an AJATT-lite program right now, but I often commit the cardinal sin of reading about a grammar concept before I've understood it intuitively, and I find that it helps me.

Yes, we are indeed in agreement, I agree with your question about the retention rate as well. Of course, if I look up a grammatic structure in 日本語文法辞典, I'm going to forget it. Maybe not the basics of the structure, when I see a sentence using it there's a good chance I'll remember it. But, I won't remember the exceptions and I won't remember how to use it myself. How do I personally solve that? Insert the example sentences I get in the dictionary (tons of them, all of them showing the exceptions so you know you have your bases covered) into my SRS. The book gave me the understanding of the structure as a whole, the exposure to the examples will keep the minor details in my mind.

Captain_Thunder Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:

Captain_Thunder Wrote:Would your Japanese skills be as strong as they are had you never visited Japan, Tobberoth?

While I would love to say yes to strenghten my position in this argument, of course I can not. The reason I learned Japanese so fast and so well, is of course in large part due to me staying in Japan, especially living together with my girlfriend who I speak nothing but Japanese with. Exposure is, like I said before, fundamental. But in all honesty, that isn't what I'm arguing here. I'm saying textbooks and grammarbooks are a great source of learning. I'm saying it gives results much faster than exposure. I'm admitting that exposure gives BETTER results in the long run, but for beginners, that isn't much of a help.

I guess what I'm saying is, when you're starting out, use textbooks and grammar books. Learn the basics and learn them quickly. Then you have all the time in the world to use exposure for the rest. You'll already have the basics down so you can basically start mining from anything. You'll be able to converse in japanese well, a GREAT way to learn better Japanese. If I couldn't talk Japanese well to my girlfriend, how would me being with her help my Japanese at all? If it hadn't been for textbooks studies when I started out, my year in Japan wouldn't have helped as much as it did. The basics I learned was the key I used to open the door of immersion and exposure.

I would say that we are in agreement, for the most part.

I would like to raise a question about the retention rate of material learned solely through textbooks/instruction, though. Personally, I can read a grammar explanation, feel like I know it, and promptly forget about it the next day when I encounter the same grammar; I'm sure others have had the same experiences. I have a much better rate of retention and understanding when I've heard something in the wild a few times, and finally make a connection on my own, especially with vocabulary. Concentrated textbook study might help you learn a specific concept faster than waiting for it to appear in your immersion environment several times, but it takes quite a bit of effort to ingrain the concept into your long-term memory without real-world context.

But like I said above, I mostly agree with you . I'm on a bit of an AJATT-lite program right now, but I often commit the cardinal sin of reading about a grammar concept before I've understood it intuitively, and I find that it helps me.

Something that i have noticed and has been mentioned in another thread is that once you have learned something once its much easier to learn again as the connection is already there in your memory somewere and then when you start to hear this in an immersive environment it completes the connection and makes it stick much easier.

This i've noticed to be true many times i've read about something in a textbook only to forget it a while later but then when it pops up in the wild it seems to stick much easier than if i just heard it in the wild over and over without ever reading/knowing what it ment in the first place and I'm sure many people have had a similar experiance even if they don't realise it.

Tobberoth Wrote:You're sort of twisting the argument to go from textbook study to classroom study, in my opinion two different things. You can self-study using the textbooks as a source of information and that's completely different as to having it as your main book in a classroom.

No. I'm not twisting it. When you say textbook, it implies classroom. If you are not in a classroom, it it just a book. If it is just a book a book, my statement holds true.

If you are studying alone you are going to have to pick one up.

Quote:I'm on a bit of an AJATT-lite program right now, but I often commit the cardinal sin of reading about a grammar concept before I've understood it intuitively, and I find that it helps me.

I still not sure where AJATT says learning grammar away from context is so terrible. Could some one point me to that please.

kazelee Wrote:No. I'm not twisting it. When you say textbook, it implies classroom. If you are not in a classroom, it it just a book. If it is just a book a book, my statement holds true.

If you are studying alone you are going to have to pick one up.

I fully agree. Which is why my argument is with mentat_kgs and alyks, not you.

Tobberoth Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:No. I'm not twisting it. When you say textbook, it implies classroom. If you are not in a classroom, it it just a book. If it is just a book a book, my statement holds true.

If you are studying alone you are going to have to pick one up.

I fully agree. Which is why my argument is with mentat_kgs and alyks, not you.

I was never arguing with you... today

Though my posting in his defense might have caused you to think otherwise. I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt until he says something in response - as that post seems very... uncharacteristic.

Personally, I'm for walking across the street anyway how. I made that statement about immersion because of the huge patterns in arguments I keep seeing. You probably know what I'm talking about.

This just in: Mr AJATT recommending a grammar book. Le shock!

I just found this here.

http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blo...se-grammar

I knew this at some point but I forgot. Silly me.

Just because you use a material that explains rules, doesn't mean you just want to memorise rules.

Anyway, even if you start reading "real material" you surely still have to look up explanations in reference materials, until you reach a certain level of proficiency.

It's possible to learn like a baby entirely through absorption with little explanation, but babies have nothing better to do, suck for a long time, and get lots of support to help get through their sucking. They suck more than an adult can bear to suck for such a prolonged time. But once they get beyond the total sucking, then immersion lets them learn the rest very quickly.

If you start immersion with zero you get little out of it, but if you already know plenty then immersion can let you fill in the rest in the most efficient way.

Given that, I think in the beginning its better to take advantage of learning materials & guides, and as you get better then immersion will pay off more & more.

Lots of different arguments going on here. Language is such a messy thing. And the fact that we have to use language to talk about language and since everyone's understanding and definition of the words we are using are slightly different one from another, it gets really messy. It seems, though, that most people are on the same page in general.

I think one semantic problem point is saying "using a textbook" and people understanding that differently--is it in a classroom context, is it for self-study, is it for sentence mining (who the hell came up with that anyway?), is it as a resource, etc. Even if we all have slightly different understandings, if each of us can maintain consistency with our own arguments, over time we might gain a better understanding of each other.

Tobberoth, the example you gave doesn't really match your subsequent explanation. You first set up a situation with straight (decontextualized) textbook study vs. straight (contextual) input. Then you go on to say that textbooks should be used in conjunction with input. It somewhat confounds the situation. But given that most of us second language students use an eclectic approach to language study, it's not that confusing. But to analyze a bit further the example you gave...

After pitting textbook against input, you set up a decontextualized test to see which one would do better. In teacher school, one of the things I was taught was "assess/test the way you teach". In other words, you shouldn't teach math by doing lots of problems and then have a test where they have to write an essay elaborating the details of the formulae they have been studying; you should test by giving them more problems. So, of course, the textbook person will fare better on a test set up the same way as the textbook, that is, designed for the purpose of artificially conjugating verbs. However, if the input person were to conjugate iku as you proposed, I, as a language teacher, would could that as a HUGE success. That's a stage that exactly mirrors a child learning their first language. In my class (yes, input is applicable to the classroom), that would tell me that I've given enough input of regular -ku verbs, but I've been neglecting input of irregulars. Easily remedied. More iku!

How about a test using the language naturally? Give a picture that the students must describe. Have a conversation with the students. Check use of conjugations in context. See who fares better. I'm guessing, both would have trouble given the short amount of study, but I would say both would do about equally. The input student might have an edge given more exposure to a variety of vocabulary rather than lists of conjugated verbs. How about a test a week later, then a month later, then a year later? I would wager the textbook student would decrease in skill much more quickly than the input student (given no further textbook/input respectively). (This is the power of stories Heisig has harnessed put to a different use. Input usually comes in context. That context is often a story. Stories help things stick because they have a plot and they often evoke emotions and feelings. The things that stick include vocabulary, grammar, tone, register, etc.)

Even setting aside this example that you created, I take issue with some other parts of what you say, Tobberoth. I wish I knew how to use the quote function and I'm a bit tipsy so I'm not going to figure it out now... but anyway. You said that one should learn the basics fast and then move on to input. I agree and I disagree. If you mean learn the basics as in memorize rules and conjugation patterns of 'basic' grammar to completion, then no, I don't. If you mean read through a textbook to gain a general understanding of the layout of the language and the various types of words and their forms before seeking input, then yes, I do. In general, your posts and your tone make me think you find it important to have the rules memorized well before moving on. I think somewhere else you question why this is a bad thing or would be wrong. Well, it's counter to the whole idea of using input. Textbooks (used in the traditional way) and input don't really go together. If you want input to be your guide, then in a way you're taking on the way input works. With input, there is a natural order of acquisition. (This order is not something to be followed; it's simply a description of when people acquire different parts of language.) The general rule is you acquire things faster if they have more meaning. So of course nouns, verbs, adjectives carry much meaning so they are the fastest/easiest to acquire through input. Conjugations carry less meaning so they come later. Etc. So if you want input to work for you, you shouldn't be shoving things in your head forcing yourself to "learn" them out of order. If you want to use input, you might consult a textbook so you can orient yourself when you find language in the wild. When you can start making sense of things, you might return to the textbook. Re-reading it your mind will latch on to new things (things you actually read before, but only now your mind is ready to understand) and you will then be able to understand more language. This back and forth is helpful but only insofar as the grammar explanations are providing meaning to the language. And yes, the analytical part of the adult brain can comprehend how language functions and how various grammatical features function and how forms of words change, but it doesn't mean that the language part of the brain has instant access to this information. That's why book learners generally speak haltingly but possibly with great accuracy but input learners can speak more fluidly but possibly with many errors (though successful communication is achieved by both sides).

You did bring up the point that if you want to speak sooner then a textbook will get you there. Ok, but can you understand responses to what you say? What kind of conversations can you really participate in? Is speaking sooner a good idea? What situation requires you to speak to such an extent at an early period in your studies? What can a textbook provide that memorizing some key emergency phrases/vocabulary can't? Are you imagining a situation of being in Japan and needing to speak early? Like I said before, it's easier to acquire more meaningful parts of language (even if you are using a textbook). And those meaningful parts of language can take you a long way. Let's say you want to say you went somewhere yesterday. If you spent time studying a textbook, you might say "ikimashita" or "itta" or you might say "iita" by mistake. But if you learned some key vocab, you might say "kinou iku" and use gestures to get your meaning across. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can't imagine a real situation where you'll NEED to conjugate accurately in the case you are required to speak early in your studies. Learning to conjugate fast to speak early just gets one into bad habits. It makes one think that language needs to be used consciously. That's not how natural language works. It should just fall out of your mouth. So really it's not good no matter how you do it to speak before it falls out of your mouth. Speaking serves to make your speaking more fluent and to solidify your grammatical knowledge, whether that knowledge is accurate or not.

Sorry, I rambled. Tend to do that more when I've been drinking.

All the arguments I see say either use one or the other or both (immersion and grammar). I don't see any compelling reasons why I shouldn't use both - so I use both.

Why is everyone working so hard to try to convince everyone that his system is the best?
Why don't we leave it at: different people study better in different ways, and leave it at that?