Thanks alyks, a useful and smoothly written summary. However, I think it's too subjective and uncritical, at least for the purposes of providing an overview to theories on language learning. I'm well aware of many blogs posting their thoughts on Krashen, but few of them seem to parallel his similarities and differences to other theories and in an objective way that isn't arguing about the Krashen revolution, et cetera.

Jarvik7 wrote:

A lot of people make a straw-man argument out of traditional book-learning. "I don't think about English grammar rules in my head when I speak (native) English, so why should I bother studying Japanese grammar rules?" The answer is that once you learn grammar rules and USE them, they become internalized and you don't think about them when you speak. It's the same thing as RTK. We learn the kanji using stories and mnemonics, but we don't keep using them forever.

The way I see it, there's no point to learning grammar rules because you might as well go straight to acquiring them from meaningful input. Which leads me to the second point.

Jarvik7 wrote:

The only difference with learning purely from exposure (sentence method etc) is that you need to figure out the rules for yourself (and likely miss out on exceptions and nuances). You are just making more work for yourself when something is already laid out for you.

The point isn't to try and "figure out the rules" the point is to try and "figure out what people say". There's a huge difference. If you try and read a lot and figure out that 全然 only goes with a negative, then I can understand your arguments. But when you try and figure out what somebody is saying when you hear something like "全然好きじゃない!" in a story, then it's different. The reason he argues output before input is because of this, you imitate what you've seen used a million times and you don't have to worry about exceptions and such. It's that you learn from imitation and communication and output based situation and context.

Example, would you find it easy to list of random words you know in your native language off the top of your head without any kind of stimulus? Kinda hard. But if I told you to list words started with the topic of computers, it would be much easier. "Computer, has a chassis, motherboard, CPU, central processing unit, center, keyboard, keys, keyhole, doorknob, room, house, ..." simply because in our native language words and sentence patterns are associated with context and real life.

Last edited by alyks (2009 January 27, 6:16 pm)

Thanks Nestor. I appreciate overviews.

alyks wrote:

The way I see it, there's no point to learning grammar rules because you might as well go straight to acquiring them from meaningful input.

No point? The idea is that while adults can choose to learn like an infant through immersion only, many believe that adult brains are able to combine learning and acquisition in ways that infant brains cannot. So the point is that adult learners will learn faster and will have a better understanding at earlier stages by combining natural input with grammar knowledge. I think Jarvik is suggested there's little benefit to an either-or approach. Why not take advantage of the full power of your brain?

The idea is not to memorize detailed grammar rules and then tackle real stuff. Learning the basics first (as you did), will obviously make subsequent input more enjoyable and more "comprehensible" (to use Krashen speak). And learning about other grammar constructions as one's encounters them won't harm language acquisition, but will speed it up. Think of it as a little comprehension hints whispered in your ear. Krashen also advocates this. (I'm talking about basic explanations and examples, not heavy duty linguistic analysis)

The point isn't to try and "figure out the rules" the point is to try and "figure out what people say". There's a huge difference.

I took Jarvik's "figure out the rules" to mean that if one has learned to speak through input alone, then it is implied that one has internalized the rules. It doesn't mean that the purpose was to learn what the rules are or that one will be capable of reciting those rules. Again, the rules will eventually be internalized either way (learned ones fall away as Jarvik says). Learning about them just speeds up the process.

Another point of learning grammar pertains to exceptions. It takes a few seconds learn an permissible exception (allowed despite contravention of a rule) whether through grammar or input. But the input method is not able to teach impermissible exceptions (not allowed despite being in accordance with a rule), because you won't encounter it. So your output will contain these types of errors.

There's stuff on this buried in Nestor's links. Alyks, you are a frequent advocate of Krashen, but I get the sense you apply his general theories a bit narrowly.

alyks wrote:

But when you try and figure out what somebody is saying when you hear something like "全然好きじゃない!" in a story, then it's different. The reason he argues output before input is because of this, you imitate what you've seen used a million times and you don't have to worry about exceptions and such. It's that you learn from imitation and communication and output based situation and context.

If you're just learning utterances, I see that as a massive waste of time. From that same phrase you could have learned what 全然, 好き, じゃ, and ない meant and be able to apply them in novel sentences, instead of an utterance of limited use (in this example, a Japanese person would rarely outright say "I don't like it at all", instead opting for something softer like あまり好きじゃない). If you ARE learning what all those elements mean over the course of many sentences, then you are figuring out usage rules in your head, if not deliberately. This is the same thing children do when they learn their first language. At first they can only repeat utterances and then eventually they figure out the rules and can make novel constructs. The problem with this is that it takes a long time compared to exposure supplemented with book learning. Silly example: my girlfriend's (Japanese) sister gave birth to a baby around the same time that I started learning Japanese. I speak better Japanese than the kid Once the kid starts going to school and supplements the everyday exposure with book learning (国語 class) she'll probably pass me, because she will be putting a lot more time into it than I do.

While I think a balance of exposure based learning and proper studying is best, having a technical view of Japanese (as in grammar rules and the names and categories of things) is definitely an asset. It really makes learning classical Japanese, dialects, and things which seem irregular (but actually are not) easier. Plus, as part of my scientific nature, I like to know how things work, which in turn gives a better understanding as to the meaning and nuance.

Ex off the top of my head:
五段動詞 「行く」in 未然形 (which is 行か)
＋ negative 助動詞 「ず」in 已然形 (which is ね)
+ 接続助動詞 「ば」
=行かねば (must go)

Now you could have just learned that 行かねば (ならない) is a more formal form of 行かなきゃ(ならない), but then you'd have to just relearn a whole new phrase instead of understanding how to make phrases more formal in general. You also wouldn't know why one is more formal than the other.

Nothing in that example was obscure Japanese. You should know the negative ず from such simple constructs as 役立たず/せず (する in old 未然形 + negative aux. verb ず), and ば and 已然形 from such things as "行けば分かる". You should know 未然形 as the negative form, but it actually has nothing to do with negative other than the fact that negative auxiliary verbs can be attached to it (it actually means something more like not-yet-realized form).

Another problem with the example I gave is that many people just learn it as a set chunk that means "must X" and not as the causal relationship that it is. This is because every textbook I've seen presents it as a chunk, the same way you'd get through simple exposure. Not knowing that it's a causal relationship means you're not going to be making novel utterances like 今行かねば売り切れて買えません (If I don't go now they'll sell out and I won't be able to buy it). You'll just be saying "I have to go".

For a more simplistic example: do you really need to memorize 青い、青くない、青くなかった、
青かった、青ければ、青くなければ、 etc individually (repeat for every 形容詞), or can you just learn once how to conjugate い adjectives?

Knowing this kind of stuff makes it easy to figure out grammar you're never seen before by puzzling it out in much the same way you can puzzle out a word you've never seen before written with kanji that you know. You can also say correct Japanese that you've never been exposed to before.

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2009 January 27, 9:12 pm)

Jarvik7 wrote:

For a more simplistic example: do you really need to memorize 青い、青くない、青くなかった、
青かった、青ければ、青くなければ、 etc individually (repeat for every 形容詞), or can you just learn once how to conjugate い adjectives?

In the time it would take to internalize the conjugations, less energy would have to be applied to seeing them all in the course of entertainment from which enough repetition would give you the ability to say them all without thinking.

Again, I don't see the point of grammar. You could learn to conjugate them all first, then expose yourself and internalize them. Or you could just expose yourself and the same thing would happen making the need to learn how to conjugate first them nonexistent (the conjugation is learned unconsciously).

Now you could have just learned that 行かねば (ならない) is a more formal form of 行かなきゃ(ならない), but then you'd have to just relearn a whole new phrase instead of understanding how to make phrases more formal in general. You also wouldn't know why one is more formal than the other.

My experience has been to the opposite. 行かなきゃ is a good example, because I learned this quite easily and understand it entirely without ever reading any kind of explanation. It's also quite easy to apply it to other verbs after only learning a few. Patterns are pretty easy to pick up.

If you're just learning utterances, I see that as a massive waste of time.

So yeah, it's not. I've been doing it for most of my time learning Japanese and I can tell you with certainty that it's not as bad as you say, and a whole of fun.

Also, I don't like to think of grammar when reading/speaking Japanese. (sorry, had to say it )

I mean, there's nothing wrong with reading through the first couple of sections in Tae Kim's guide or something. I would even recommend it for the absolute beginner (I myself went through a bit of UBJB by just importing the sentences into Anki and learning what they mean). But only for understanding. Consciously trying to remember the rules is what I don't like because with enough exposure it becomes automatic really quickly anyway. This isn't just speculation, it's what I've been doing for the past 5 months and I can conjugate really well.

QuackingShoe wrote:

The hypothetical universe you guys live in with hypothetical people using hypothetical methods to learn what seems to be a hypothetical language is a weird one.

That is why test subjects must be kidnapped.
http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/bl … no-grammar
This article came at a suspisciously coincidental time. Does he read these forums?

alyks wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

For a more simplistic example: do you really need to memorize 青い、青くない、青くなかった、
青かった、青ければ、青くなければ、 etc individually (repeat for every 形容詞), or can you just learn once how to conjugate い adjectives?

In the time it would take to internalize the conjugations, less energy would have to be applied to seeing them all in the course of entertainment from which enough repetition would give you the ability to say them all without thinking.

Again, I don't see the point of grammar. You could learn to conjugate them all first, then expose yourself and internalize them. Or you could just expose yourself and the same thing would happen making the need to learn how to conjugate first them nonexistent (the conjugation is learned unconsciously).

It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes to memorize the conjugation table for い adjectives, less than the length of a single anime episode. I can't imagine you managed to get exposed to & isolate, figure out, and internalize all of the conjugations completely in anything less than a few weeks. Then again I'm betting you learned adjective conjugation long before you started sentence method

My experience has been to the opposite. 行かなきゃ is a good example, because I learned this quite easily and understand it entirely without ever reading any kind of explanation. It's also quite easy to apply it to other verbs after only learning a few. Patterns are pretty easy to pick up.

I think you missed what I was saying. Assuming you know 行かなきゃ and are exposed to 行かねば-->

Did you also pick up on the causal relationship? (行かなきゃよかった, a slangy form of "I wish I never went").

Thora wrote:

hehe  Prof Jarvik: You may have just scared off a bunch of people.  And classical Japanese as a dangling carrot? hmm -you might need to get out of your library a bit more. 

Having access to the second largest library in Canada (#1 largest Japanese library) is too tempting

Really though classical Japanese is mostly of use for filling out your knowledge of Japanese. A lot of classical still finds use in modern speech, and a lot of stuff that seems weird in modern Japanese makes total sense when you look at how it evolved from classical. I don't really care about reading Genji Monogatari in the original. (although JP folktales are awesome)

Thats the same reason why I'm also studying Chinese (plus it's so easy if you know kanji). It gives still more background knowledge. To continue the example above, the 2nd "行" in 行かなきゃ行けない uses the Chinese meaning that isn't written in most kanji dictionaries I've found --> "OK, alright". It's something that has kind of fossilized from the days of 漢文. Also seen in "それは行けませんね". It's not a slangy "That won't go".

It's not just an exercise in academia, I come across a lot of it in translations I'm doing to get certified. Japanese people love wordplay.

<insert complaint about the awful definition of 行 in kanjidic. It manages to have two definitions, one right, the other wrong, and the rest of the meanings of 行 missing, including the main meaning as seen in 行く>

In response to the ajatt link.. Like most stuff khatz writes it's TLDR with an annoying writing style that attempts to be funny, but I'll negate his entire argument right here (it's not the first time I've heard it). There is such a thing as grammar. There is no such thing as a CORRECT grammar (it's subjective). Just because grammar is (usually) descriptive instead of prescriptive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because it evolves doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just because goed isn't a word doesn't mean that grammar doesn't exist. You might as well just say that nothing exists and achieve enlightenment.

Just because a native speaker doesn't think of grammar when they speak and can't instantly produce a rule describing something or say if a word is transitive or not doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means it is internalized. As an analogy think of this: when we move our arm we just move it without thinking of actuating individual muscles. There are rules that our brain follows in deciding how to actuate that muscle and how much force to apply to it and when to stop moving it to pick up that glass of water. We don't think of any of that when we pick up the glass of water. We just think "pick up that glass of water". Does this mean that muscles do not exist because we do not consciously interact with them?

I think khatz should try studying up on linguistics, first language acquisition, language disorders (there are some amazingly weird language disorders that mess up some people's grammar "centers" so stuff comes out garbled but in a regular way, but they think they are speaking normally and understand when spoken to normally. For example people with Broca's Aphasia leave out all function words. Conditions such as these are pretty much proof of grammar existing in our heads), second language acquisition, etc instead of being a basement theorist describing his personal experience as the universal truth in the form of a revelation, with everything else being (obviously) false. Or at least that is how he comes across to me and a lot of other people I know.

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2009 January 27, 10:38 pm)

No one is saying "just study rules". If you just study rules all day but never actually use it, wtf was the point? I feel sorry for anyone who just studied rules for four years before they ever thought to read something. Study & usage go hand in hand. Just because it's possible through exposure alone (which no one is debating) doesn't mean it's the best/fastest way.

But eventually it gets to where you're a bum on the street begging for a JLPT grammar list and trying to figure out sentences like "みんなで力を合わせて、平和で住みやすい社会を作ろうではないか。", forcing yourself to memorize conjugation charts/usage and reading stupid children books that you hate but think you have to because they're at the right level. Where does it stop?

Never met anyone like that who actually studied properly and used their Japanese. There is nothing wrong with asking for a JLPT grammar list if you intend on taking JLPT though. You pass standardized tests by studying for the test. Although I didn't even study grammar when I took JLPT last year since after looking at the list I realized that I already had known everything on it for a long time.

Then you think "verbs could be useful" learn the formal past/present pos/neg tenses for verbs.

Verbs in Japanese only have 5 forms (hence the 5 in godan verbs, the category that has a vowel change for each form). Everything else is done with vocabulary. You might think that there are more, but that is because you learned from the top down and not the bottom up so you never learned the underlying simplicity. Five tenses is again, not an insurmountable obstacle and can be done in less than a day. Also, these are the same forms that are used with adjective conjugation.

Learning core Japanese grammar like this should take less than a week.

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2009 January 28, 3:23 am)

Aklys -- do you avoid dictionaries as well? If not, then what's the difference between looking up the meaning of a word and looking up the meaning of a word pattern?

Except there are only 5 verb forms and you're going to use every single one of them right from the beginning. It's nothing like memorizing an entire dictionary which has >100,000 words, most of which you will never use.

Didn't you do RTK? Didn't you invent the movie method to memorize every kanji reading before learning vocab? Those are both magnitudes more pre-study before application than verbs are.

pm215 wields an Alyks.
Alyks welds itself to pm215's hand.

~J

Last edited by woodwojr (2009 January 28, 4:11 am)

alyks wrote:

Memorizing verb charts or word patterns and what not is a waste of time.

Actually, it's a huge timesaver. You can memorize all the conjugations needed in Japanese in a day. Doing the same in context would take weeks. Instead of having to guess what ご飯を食べれば？ means, you would know it instantly.

Structured learning owns. Which is why it owns to learn kanji before you start reading.