Grammar is like training wheels. If/when you do become fluent you won't need grammar because comprehension will have become reflexive and speaking largely automatic. The rules your brain uses to interpret messages become hardwired into the brain. Your brain will be reconfigured. This reconfiguration of the brain is not the same as knowing a description of a bunch of grammar points. In fact 'knowing' the grammar rules in this way is not necessarily even a required step in the brain reconfiguration. That said, grammar rules can be helpful sometimes in interpreting messages that your brain is not yet able to understand intuitively (text in particular). I'd recommend studying grammar as a means if and when it is strictly necessary, not as an end in itself. Regularly read/listen/speak japanese and when something pops up that you don't understand, look it up online.  Give yourself a rough overview of grammar with something like taekim and refer back to it when necessary. Don't expect to remember or understand everything. You could memorize all the grammar in some grammar reference or textbook, but until your brain starts reconfiguring itself via practice you won't be able to intuitively comprehend text or speech (decode maybe).

No beginner textbook is going to cover enough to make native materials easily comprehensible. And grammar dictionaries are made redundant by internet search engines. Just pick a beginner resource (any of them) and read through it taking from it what you will. Then get stuck into using native materials.

I sometimes wonder if intuitive comprehension is more effectively trained in the absence of any grammar crutches. Think about it, if you're reading along and something triggers a grammar description, then at that point your brain performs a translation and stops wondering (based on the surrounding words and context alone) what the meaning is.

I don't see myself somehow understanding grammar structures without having them explained to me first. I could see that happening once I've acquired a firm grasp of the basic grammar and can dedict the meaning from context.

I need grammar to become fluent. After having read DoBJG and drilling the sentences in Anki and starting to read native material my comprehension shot through the roof in a matter of few weeks. Before doing all that reading native material was a pain in the ass. Now it's very enjoyable.

That said grammar is nothing like training wheels. You can learn to drive a bike without training wheels. I can't say that's true for grammar and Japanese.

SammyB wrote:

^ I think you forgot how all the native speakers learnt Japanese.

From birth, with years upon years of exposure, with no other language mapped to their brain, with no understanding of concepts outside of a relationship between semiotic values and Japanese linguistic expression.

Learning a second language as an adult, unless one were to undergo some form of lobotomy or extensive shock treatment which effectively neutered all neural mapping of language pathways and concept maps, memory in relation to the experiences which reinforced these over time, and reversing the hormonal and structural changes in physical brain state, puberty, etc., is not fairly compared to learning your native language/s as a child.

you can learn ABOUT grammar and know heaps of rules, but not be able to use it on the fly. I know this to be true because I am currently in that position myself. Fact. Japanese people.
<snip>
I think the analogy goes even further... In the same way that you can rely tooo much on training wheels and never actually learn how to ride, you can learn ABOUT grammar and know heaps of rules, but not be able to use it on the fly.

During the education within most countries, children are taught and extensively tested and expected to comprehend and produce higher levels of linguistic complexity. Compare the average adult who has undergone anywhere between 10 and 13 years of education with an average adult who has undergone no formal education and it without extensive self-study and/or tutelage and the difference in not only comprehension of higher concepts, complex language, etc. provides a strong correlation indicating that not even "the natives" are generally able to handle highly conceptual problems and manipulate language/express complex ideas without an extensive study overview of a range of grammatical concepts.

There are many self-study Japanese internet figures of which have made many claims about not studying grammar, or the lack of need to study grammar, etc. but most of these claims which I have read are working under basically the same false dichotomy. What they may or may not realise (yet fail to communicate regardless) is that even the famous virtual 「万日本語の文の方法」 indulges in grammar study right from the start. The very act of finding a native sentence or using a pre-made native sentence and looking up what particles mean in the context, which level of politeness it is structured, what the readings mean in this particular syntax pattern, etc. is actively studying grammar.

Just because it may not be structured around/focused on an organised guide to common/basic grammatical forms, etc., does not mean the person is not studying grammar any less than someone in a class room or using a text book. Learning Japanese, the "native way" involves even more time spent reading particle descriptions, pattern examples, politeness levels, contractions, etc., as the content is aimed at native speakers and thus the grammar level is going to involve a spectrum of simple, complex, colloquial, dialect based; all without regard for vocabulary, understanding of nuances, etc.

The learning curve in magnitudes steeper and does not guarantee a higher or the same level of comprehension as a structured learning environment.

SammyB wrote:

^ I think you forgot how all the native speakers learnt Japanese. The grammar/training wheels analogy seems apt. As you mention it's possible to learn how to ride a bike without training wheels. You can also learn Japanese without studying grammar first. Fact. Japanese people. HOWEVER, I agree with you that for us L2 learners it probably speeds up the process (in the same way that training wheels can bridge the gap to full riding).

I think the analogy goes even further... In the same way that you can rely tooo much on training wheels and never actually learn how to ride, you can learn ABOUT grammar and know heaps of rules, but not be able to use it on the fly. I know this to be true because I am currently in that position myself.

:p

The problem with analogies is that they're tools for making yourself understood. They're not tools for proving yourself right. (they're not arguments, using them as arguments is a logical fallacy).

But yeah, you are also right. I'm gonna add my own experience, with not one but three different languages, to back you up. I'll also add the experience of a person who's book I've read recently: Lomb Kato. Her experience comes from learning 17 languages. What I wrote about grammar, in my previous post, is in line with her views on it. She highly recommends that adults use grammar points to understand the structure of sentences they learn (and argues, quite convincingly, against the school of thought by which grammar is useless). But she is vehemently against memorizing grammatical rules and expecting knowledge to come out of that exercise.

Last edited by Stansfield123 (2013 February 12, 8:48 am)

nadiatims wrote:

@Stansfield

well said.

Uisukii wrote:

Learning a second language as an adult, unless one were to undergo some form of lobotomy or extensive shock treatment which effectively neutered all neural mapping of language pathways and concept maps, memory in relation to the experiences which reinforced these over time, and reversing the hormonal and structural changes in physical brain state, puberty, etc., is not fairly compared to learning your native language/s as a child.

Don't you think you're being a little drastic here? The human brain does not cease learning and changing all of a sudden one day in your teens/childhood or whatever. People continue learning new things throughout their lives as long as they are exposed to new experiences. Even the least studious of people who comes to Japan will without any particular effort learn the names of people and places, the names of all sorts of different products, restaurant menu items, shop/brand names etc. They won't learn it overnight but the brain eventually adjusts to accommodate relevant information that it is repeatedly exposed to over stretches of time. Children seem to learn faster sure, (they also get orders of magnitude more exposure) but I think the difference between children and adults is primarily a matter of degree not of mechanism.

I wasn't talking about speed or learning adaptability; I was specifically referring to the fact that it is not a fair comparison to illustrate the cognitive language learning environment of a native infant with an adult whom already has acquired a matured conceptual mapping of the world shaped by their native language.

The difference isn't simply a matter of degree, it is that when you learn your native language, you also map your entire world view and understanding of reality as an expression relative to the language. Children learn new concepts and their first attachment is the language used to comprehend and imagine their place in relation to these concepts.

As adults we already have in place years of experience, formal study, private reading, reflection, time to fully contemplate and engage with these changing environments and develop extensive epistemological ties with the world at large.

To learn "as a child", means undoing this and returning to a blank-state, devoid of the years upon years worth of built up presuppositions, pretensions of knowledge, accepted axioms, beliefs, sensory associations, etc.   

What I am suggesting is not a negative relationship between adult acquisition of a second language and superiority of native fluency from birth. The opposite, in fact. Learning your first language also means having to experience the contexts which give value to language, and puberty to allow for the hormonal and physical development of the brain and rest of the body to be in a state which isn't primarily focused on changes in sexual development. Adult learners have an edge over native children in that they are able to acquire and comprehend language and underlying structure at a higher level of complexity, utilizing a larger pool of experience and intelligence.

Isn't this the 3rd topic to derail into the same conversation in the past week alone?

Having at least a rudimentary understanding of all the grammar points up to the intermediate level has definitely helped me. Before I finished Tae Kim I tried to read yotsubato and found it literally impossible to understand even after looking up every word. After going through Tae Kim and SRSing all the sentences for a few weeks I was able to understand almost everything (after looking up words of course). Now I can understand all the grammar in yotsubato pretty much effortlessly and the only problems I have are that my vocab is severely lacking.

I get the whole "learn grammar through immersion" idea, but my brain just isn't wired to cope with this in an efficient manner. I used to stare at a sentences in the wild and know all the words and a basic understanding of all the grammar and still couldn't get the correct meaning of the sentence.

I don't know why everyone is shitting on Tae Kim as well. Some of his word choices are a bit questionable, but I found his explanation of each grammar point to be excellent.

Cant we all just get along?

1. Keep in touch with native Japanese.
2. Study however makes sense/works for you.
3. ???
4. Profit.

It's fitting. It avoids pointless arguing. I don't see anything childish about it.
Come on now. 8/

Kewickviper wrote:

I don't know why everyone is shitting on Tae Kim as well. Some of his word choices are a bit questionable, but I found his explanation of each grammar point to be excellent.

If the idea is to build a knowledge of both grammar and vocabulary Tae Kim + Core only cover the very dry basics.  Textbooks have example conversations, reading selections, cultural notes and other tips.  While in general all beginner materials are a little dry and boring there is more variety there than just grammar explanations and a disconnected vocabulary list based on news article word frequency.

Of course it would be extremely stupid to not use resources that are available to you and that most certainly includes Tae Kim's site and the iKnow Core decks.  However this idea that textbooks are completely worthless is ridiculous and most beginners could really use the overall structure and direction that they provide.

Last edited by tokyostyle (2013 March 04, 12:26 pm)

Does everyone at least agree that grammar is just a description, a tool, and does not actually equate to the language you are trying to learn?

And i think my training wheel analogy is apt. After a certain point you can stop using grammar. You can maintain your balance, or rather find or construct meaning on your own. Until you have that confidence, keeping some rules in mind can help you, in figuring out who's doing what in a sentence, or which particle to use and when you try to say something. But these rules are never 100% accurate or give particularly comprehensive coverage of the whole language. So at some point you have to start winging it anyway.

In a way languages are the way they are as a direct result of everyone just winging it. Languages form out of a kind of unspoken group consensus of native speakers. In english you place the object behind the verb, not because that's the rule, but just because that's what everyone else does. If speaking a language required one to learn grammar first then no one would speak languages. If asked about grammar, native speakers may be able to point out the most obvious handful of things, like past tense, present tense and perhaps something a teacher drilled into them at school. But beyond the basics, even natives have no idea why they say things the way they do. They just attempt to communicate by copying the conventions of the rest of society. I wouldn't even have been able to tell a person the difference between "I" and "me" before I came to Japan.

nadiatims wrote:

Does everyone at least agree that grammar is just a description, a tool, and does not actually equate to the language you are trying to learn?

Grammar does not equal language.  Studying grammar rules alone is not enough.  But they can provide a useful shortcut to understanding what you are reading, especially at the beginning stages.  Even at the advanced stages, though, they can help a lot.  I'm not going to rehash my personal experiences yet again but I don't think there's any point where grammar rules/descriptions become totally useless.

In a way languages are the way they are as a direct result of everyone just winging it. Languages form out of a kind of unspoken group consensus of native speakers. In english you place the object behind the verb, not because that's the rule, but just because that's what everyone else does.

This is not correct.  Native speakers of a language have rules in their head that governs what they say.  These rules are not always simple or easily describable and they don't match the prescriptive grammar taught in grammar guides.  Native speakers cannot describe the rules in their head, but they exist.  Lots and lots of linguistic research over the past century has confirmed this over and over, and internal grammar is a fundamental concept of virtually all linguistics.

The fact that native speakers aren't conscious of the rules isn't really relevant to this idea; I'm not conscious of the exact muscle movements that enable me to move my leg but that doesn't mean they can't be described.

This doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with how you should learn a language, though.