Comments on: Grammar Does Not Exist http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar You don't learn a language, you get used to it. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:27:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Avery http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-172334 Avery Mon, 05 Dec 2011 03:46:18 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-172334 Grammar believers, please diagram the English sentence "long time no see". Grammar believers, please diagram the English sentence “long time no see”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Endl http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-149124 Endl Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:06:50 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-149124 I'm another linguistics major. The way you describe linguistics, it seems like you've never really looked at how linguists actually conduct research nowadays. Nowadays, Chomsky is out and statistical analysis is in, because we understand that language is not a hard and fast set of rules but a distribution of patterns. When we assign categories we understand these to be generalizations and descriptors, not a set in stone thing.  You called "al-" a *phoneme* for crissakes, when it's a definite article. It functions largely similarly to "the" and other definite articles, so it's safe to call it that. Wikipedia even talks about its use: ذكري: when the word being referred to has already been mentioned. An example is found in the word <em>messenger</em> in "We had sent to Pharaoh a messenger. But Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger..." (Qur'an 73:15-6). ذهني: when the word being referred to is understood by the listener. An example is found in the word <em>battle</em> in "The battle is getting worse; I think we should retreat." To call it it's own magical thing we can't know doesn't help us understand how it works in then language at all. Yes, there are other grammatical rules that affect its use, but what it basically does is understood and should not be ignored in favor of mysticalizing it as the unknown. If our linguistic capacity can handle it, certainly our intellectual one can. I’m another linguistics major. The way you describe linguistics, it seems like you’ve never really looked at how linguists actually conduct research nowadays. Nowadays, Chomsky is out and statistical analysis is in, because we understand that language is not a hard and fast set of rules but a distribution of patterns. When we assign categories we understand these to be generalizations and descriptors, not a set in stone thing. 

You called “al-” a *phoneme* for crissakes, when it’s a definite article. It functions largely similarly to “the” and other definite articles, so it’s safe to call it that. Wikipedia even talks about its use:

ذكري: when the word being referred to has already been mentioned. An example is found in the word messenger in “We had sent to Pharaoh a messenger. But Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger…” (Qur’an 73:15-6).
ذهني: when the word being referred to is understood by the listener. An example is found in the word battle in “The battle is getting worse; I think we should retreat.”

To call it it’s own magical thing we can’t know doesn’t help us understand how it works in then language at all. Yes, there are other grammatical rules that affect its use, but what it basically does is understood and should not be ignored in favor of mysticalizing it as the unknown. If our linguistic capacity can handle it, certainly our intellectual one can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Ian Long http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-133509 Ian Long Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:16:50 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-133509 This is compleatly correct.  In fact, what we think of as Engish grammar, is just one set of grammar rules.  It is actually called Traditional grammar, and was designed by linguists to describe language.  It was never intended to be used for language instruction, and is basically not suited to that use at all.  There are various other grammars floating about, but sadly everyone gets forced to use Traditional English grammar. This is compleatly correct.  In fact, what we think of as Engish grammar, is just one set of grammar rules.  It is actually called Traditional grammar, and was designed by linguists to describe language.  It was never intended to be used for language instruction, and is basically not suited to that use at all.  There are various other grammars floating about, but sadly everyone gets forced to use Traditional English grammar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Santiago Madrigal http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-116662 Santiago Madrigal Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:13:53 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-116662 This! In the name of everything that is sacred, THIS!!! :D Excellent way to put it Relja, I totally agree with you. True grammar is not the same as it's abstraction (boring grammar), true-natural grammar is almost like a physical skill, something that you feel and live, something that just becomes part of you after being exposed to a language after obscene amounts of time. ... why didn't I thought about it earlier? I'm jealous xD This! In the name of everything that is sacred, THIS!!! :D

Excellent way to put it Relja, I totally agree with you. True grammar is not the same as it’s abstraction (boring grammar), true-natural grammar is almost like a physical skill, something that you feel and live, something that just becomes part of you after being exposed to a language after obscene amounts of time.

… why didn’t I thought about it earlier? I’m jealous xD

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Areckx http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-99929 Areckx Thu, 26 May 2011 19:50:27 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-99929 I like the part about studying grammar IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE. I read hundreds of books in English before I finally got to high school English grammar drills. It was boring, and I liked it because I had all of the information already stored in the back of my head. The lessons further solidified my English into the back of my brain so I could continue reading and using English without even thinking about it. This is where I plan to be with my Japanese, after I've read enough, after I've got my feet wet with a few hundred books. With a few hundred thousand sentences. With a few million kanji pairings... I like the part about studying grammar IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE.

I read hundreds of books in English before I finally got to high school English grammar drills. It was boring, and I liked it because I had all of the information already stored in the back of my head. The lessons further solidified my English into the back of my brain so I could continue reading and using English without even thinking about it.

This is where I plan to be with my Japanese, after I’ve read enough, after I’ve got my feet wet with a few hundred books. With a few hundred thousand sentences. With a few million kanji pairings…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: salem http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-84444 salem Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:47:56 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-84444 To be quite frank, I have major issues with even the formalized, taxonomic grammar studied in ivory towers. It operates on an information poor, myopic view of language — this idea that the patterns that shape sentences can be formalized into cross-lingual structures. The reason linguists rarely try to taxonomize colloquial language (beyond describing new phenomena after the fact) is probably because it's impossible: language is not like a set of beetle species; it's too unique, too simple and at the same time too vastly incomprehensible to the human mind to reduce to baser elements. I'm with Walker Percy when he said he was amused at the scientific community's attempt to find if animals can talk, if aliens exist that can talk, etc., all the while forgetting the sheer bizarreness of man's <em>own</em> lingual capacity. Much of what passes for descriptive grammar in the .pdfs of academia isn't even true. Arabic is not a "VSO" (or any particular word order for that matter) language: to squish and jam its stiff gelatin mass into the square hole that is the "VSO" paradigm, you have to basically find sentences that fit your preconception of the language. (The Wikipedia article on "VSO" even tacitly admits that few languages express this pattern with any predictable regularity). The "definite article" doesn't work the same in all languages. In Arabic, "al-" is not really at all equivalent to "the"; it has its own meaning that's impossible to translate into or describe in English without writing about 5,000 words on the subject (and even then you wouldn't get the spirit of the phoneme). This is not to toss our hands up and say that language is unknowable, that we should never seek to describe language in a scientific way. But a drastic change in scope is desperately required: we cannot continue studying language as though it were a kind of Sumerian ceramic style, because studying language is really to study <em>ourselves</em>. And just try to compress the full breadth of humanity into a few rules and descriptions. To be quite frank, I have major issues with even the formalized, taxonomic grammar studied in ivory towers. It operates on an information poor, myopic view of language — this idea that the patterns that shape sentences can be formalized into cross-lingual structures. The reason linguists rarely try to taxonomize colloquial language (beyond describing new phenomena after the fact) is probably because it’s impossible: language is not like a set of beetle species; it’s too unique, too simple and at the same time too vastly incomprehensible to the human mind to reduce to baser elements. I’m with Walker Percy when he said he was amused at the scientific community’s attempt to find if animals can talk, if aliens exist that can talk, etc., all the while forgetting the sheer bizarreness of man’s own lingual capacity.

Much of what passes for descriptive grammar in the .pdfs of academia isn’t even true. Arabic is not a “VSO” (or any particular word order for that matter) language: to squish and jam its stiff gelatin mass into the square hole that is the “VSO” paradigm, you have to basically find sentences that fit your preconception of the language. (The Wikipedia article on “VSO” even tacitly admits that few languages express this pattern with any predictable regularity). The “definite article” doesn’t work the same in all languages. In Arabic, “al-” is not really at all equivalent to “the”; it has its own meaning that’s impossible to translate into or describe in English without writing about 5,000 words on the subject (and even then you wouldn’t get the spirit of the phoneme).

This is not to toss our hands up and say that language is unknowable, that we should never seek to describe language in a scientific way. But a drastic change in scope is desperately required: we cannot continue studying language as though it were a kind of Sumerian ceramic style, because studying language is really to study ourselves. And just try to compress the full breadth of humanity into a few rules and descriptions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Richard http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-60639 Richard Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:17:06 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-60639 日本語はどうですか。 日本語はどうですか。

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Emp http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-59218 Emp Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:14:19 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-59218 Abstractions (grammar is one) have the most predictive power (provided they are <i>good</i> abstractions) in situations that are regular, sensible, reasonable, etc. Like science or math. Before Copernicus people were describing star movement in these insanely complicated ways that included terms like "retrograde" and were a pain to deal with. But then someone was able to see to the simple truth behind all that carp, that the model was wrong and when you shift to the more accurate one things get sweet and simple. Since then (or before then, since that's just a well-known example), pretty much any time that the explanations ended up getting really cumbersome when trying to account for WHAT REALLY HAPPENS, inevitably would come a new epiphany that makes things simpler again if we only look at them in a different way. So yay. Happiness for science and especially the pure and theoretical world that is math. Abstractions work great for anything that can be boiled down to something simple. Unfortunately languages cannot, thanks to the randomness of humanity. Even most of our deliberately created languages (C++ eh?) have inconsistencies in them, from some new change being applied only partially, because there was a critical point for laziness, or it just seemed weird in some situations. Humans do like order well enough, so they don't go deliberately making things random and chaotic when determining WHAT REALLY HAPPENS in languages, but are bound by such semi-relevant factors as "this is awkward to pronounce" and "I'm too lazy to say the whole word so I'll just use part," which are all in some way related to convenience. (Plus where languages are widespread we have these changes going on in parallel and get dialects). Humans like convenience better than order. Therefore language (something we use a lot and therefore want to be as lazy as possible with) grows more for the sake of convenience than for the simplistic beauty of pure order. All we "native" speakers know what we mean well enough, so it works for us. Sure, it might be easier to learn for other people if it acted in a way that made sense all the time, but that would take more work on our part, and en masse. Not gonna happen. (Especially in languages that are the bastard children of other languages, like English. Anyone who learned English first should know better. Why then are some of the most strict "grammarists" english-speaking? I blame British Imperial mentality.) So any attempt to describe the human creation of language as if it were as sensible as objects obeying physics is pretty silly. On a high level we can get it to work, and it can indeed be very useful. It will point us in the general right direction and set up a basic intuition for how things work. But if we try to force it to accomodate the nitty gritty of all individual cases we set ourselves up for frustration and way more work than any insight from it is worth. Because unlike science, no real language has beautiful, underlying universal truths. Just vague generalities. So I find grammar useful as long as I stay at the vague level of "it works sorta like that, eh?" To summarize the summary of the summary: Laziness is more powerful than logic. Abstractions (grammar is one) have the most predictive power (provided they are good abstractions) in situations that are regular, sensible, reasonable, etc. Like science or math. Before Copernicus people were describing star movement in these insanely complicated ways that included terms like “retrograde” and were a pain to deal with. But then someone was able to see to the simple truth behind all that carp, that the model was wrong and when you shift to the more accurate one things get sweet and simple.

Since then (or before then, since that’s just a well-known example), pretty much any time that the explanations ended up getting really cumbersome when trying to account for WHAT REALLY HAPPENS, inevitably would come a new epiphany that makes things simpler again if we only look at them in a different way. So yay. Happiness for science and especially the pure and theoretical world that is math.

Abstractions work great for anything that can be boiled down to something simple. Unfortunately languages cannot, thanks to the randomness of humanity. Even most of our deliberately created languages (C++ eh?) have inconsistencies in them, from some new change being applied only partially, because there was a critical point for laziness, or it just seemed weird in some situations. Humans do like order well enough, so they don’t go deliberately making things random and chaotic when determining WHAT REALLY HAPPENS in languages, but are bound by such semi-relevant factors as “this is awkward to pronounce” and “I’m too lazy to say the whole word so I’ll just use part,” which are all in some way related to convenience. (Plus where languages are widespread we have these changes going on in parallel and get dialects).

Humans like convenience better than order. Therefore language (something we use a lot and therefore want to be as lazy as possible with) grows more for the sake of convenience than for the simplistic beauty of pure order. All we “native” speakers know what we mean well enough, so it works for us. Sure, it might be easier to learn for other people if it acted in a way that made sense all the time, but that would take more work on our part, and en masse. Not gonna happen. (Especially in languages that are the ******* children of other languages, like English. Anyone who learned English first should know better. Why then are some of the most strict “grammarists” english-speaking? I blame British Imperial mentality.)

So any attempt to describe the human creation of language as if it were as sensible as objects obeying physics is pretty silly. On a high level we can get it to work, and it can indeed be very useful. It will point us in the general right direction and set up a basic intuition for how things work. But if we try to force it to accomodate the nitty gritty of all individual cases we set ourselves up for frustration and way more work than any insight from it is worth. Because unlike science, no real language has beautiful, underlying universal truths. Just vague generalities.

So I find grammar useful as long as I stay at the vague level of “it works sorta like that, eh?”

To summarize the summary of the summary: Laziness is more powerful than logic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: タック http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-57018 タック Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:57:17 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-57018 If grammar rules really existed translator programs would be perfect. ね If grammar rules really existed translator programs would be perfect. ね

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-53323 Jonathan Sat, 21 Aug 2010 07:12:20 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-53323 For me, the best part about this post is the fact that 「行く」 is actually irregular; if it obeyed the "rules" of Japanese grammar, its past tense form would be 「行いた」. So in a way, this random, simple example actually proves its own case rather elegantly. :) For me, the best part about this post is the fact that 「行く」 is actually irregular; if it obeyed the “rules” of Japanese grammar, its past tense form would be 「行いた」. So in a way, this random, simple example actually proves its own case rather elegantly. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: wasabwack http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-52981 wasabwack Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:29:59 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-52981 Thank you for helping me reach enlightenment. THERE IS NO SPOON! Thank you for helping me reach enlightenment.
THERE IS NO SPOON!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Grammar Does Not Exist « zlJapanese http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-52980 Grammar Does Not Exist « zlJapanese Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:27:59 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-52980 [...] Thanks Khatz. [...] [...] Thanks Khatz. [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Grammar’s Dead. Yay? « Japanese On A Dime http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-50027 Grammar’s Dead. Yay? « Japanese On A Dime Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:35:26 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-50027 [...] like to think I don’t usually jump on the bandwagon with my posts, but I really want to chime in [...] [...] like to think I don’t usually jump on the bandwagon with my posts, but I really want to chime in [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: NIHONGOCENTRAL | grammar-buddy http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-47268 NIHONGOCENTRAL | grammar-buddy Sat, 03 Jul 2010 06:05:00 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-47268 [...] Khatzumoto of AJATT: Grammar Does Not Exist [...] [...] Khatzumoto of AJATT: Grammar Does Not Exist [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Study Method Overload « My adventure learning the Japanese language http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-34239 Study Method Overload « My adventure learning the Japanese language Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:13:21 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-34239 [...] should you study? Should you study via sentences only? On the AJATT site, Khatz talks about how you should only study words in context, never alone. So that means sentences [...] [...] should you study? Should you study via sentences only? On the AJATT site, Khatz talks about how you should only study words in context, never alone. So that means sentences [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Screw grammar | Spanish Only http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-29477 Screw grammar | Spanish Only Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:41:36 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-29477 [...] for over 6 months, finished and everything, but only thought about publishing it after reading this article over at AllJapaneseAllTheTime.com. Enjoy it and don’t be afraid to [...] [...] for over 6 months, finished and everything, but only thought about publishing it after reading this article over at AllJapaneseAllTheTime.com. Enjoy it and don’t be afraid to [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: All Japanese All The Time Dot Com: How to learn Japanese. On your own, having fun and to fluency. » The “Flat” Approach To Languages With Tons of Inflection http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-25505 All Japanese All The Time Dot Com: How to learn Japanese. On your own, having fun and to fluency. » The “Flat” Approach To Languages With Tons of Inflection Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:00:47 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-25505 [...] There are no cases in Finnish.* [...] [...] There are no cases in Finnish.* [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: What’s grammar got to do with it? http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-25018 What’s grammar got to do with it? Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:53:10 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-25018 [...] couple of folks whose opinions I respect say none at all, but I’m not so sure. The biggest argument [...] [...] couple of folks whose opinions I respect say none at all, but I’m not so sure. The biggest argument [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: キャシー (that's Cassie, stooge, not Cathy. Get over it xO) http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-23198 キャシー (that's Cassie, stooge, not Cathy. Get over it xO) Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:44:15 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-23198 Heh, this makes me think of when I was working in the reading/writing lab at the local community college. I was helping an ESL student with her work, and was trying to lead her to understand why her sentence didn't quite work (this is another great way to work on getting the underlying feel of other languages, because working with their mistakes in English leads you to a feel of how they think and how that must come from something in their own language's mindset), and why this other one did. Her face lit up, and she said, "Oh! It's a gerund, right?" and I was like, "...uh... maybe? What's a gerund?" (Cue but-you're-really-smart-you-should-know-this look, followed by my but-we-natives-never-learn-these-things laugh) I now know that it's the -ing form of a verb that functions as a noun, rather than that which functions as a progressive verb. But who ever needed to know that? Heh, this makes me think of when I was working in the reading/writing lab at the local community college. I was helping an ESL student with her work, and was trying to lead her to understand why her sentence didn’t quite work (this is another great way to work on getting the underlying feel of other languages, because working with their mistakes in English leads you to a feel of how they think and how that must come from something in their own language’s mindset), and why this other one did. Her face lit up, and she said, “Oh! It’s a gerund, right?” and I was like, “…uh… maybe? What’s a gerund?” (Cue but-you’re-really-smart-you-should-know-this look, followed by my but-we-natives-never-learn-these-things laugh) I now know that it’s the -ing form of a verb that functions as a noun, rather than that which functions as a progressive verb. But who ever needed to know that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Hana http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/there-is-no-grammar#comment-21866 Hana Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:50:07 +0000 http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/?p=361#comment-21866 Reading this, I am suddenly starting to remember how I learned my native language - English!! It is, I think, pretty similar to how you've just suggested we learn our second language. I was homeschooled, and I basically taught myself everything. My mum didn't even do a lot of the teaching; it was mostly me teaching myself. I, for the most part, only learned things I felt were important to learn and I learned those things at the pace that was comfortable for me. This worked!! So - I learned to read and write English on my own, and at my own pace. Because I learned outside of school and I taught myself mostly everything, I ended up learning to read and write a lot later than other kids my age. They were reading and studying boring grammar in school, but I was looking around at street signs going "wtf do all those symbols mean?" Yet, I could speak quite well and understand all kinds of technical, "advanced adult" talk. The only grammar I remember studying, at first, was a phonetics book... and even that I picked up out of curiosity and a desire to learn to read, finally. I remember looking at it maybe only up to five times. I read things like 'A makes this sound and Th makes that sound....' and that was it. Then, I read a few sentences in a children's book. And one night, I picked up a novel (by Laura Ingalls Wilder, I believe) and I read the whole freakin thing. I was like "woah, holy frick mum, I just read me a book!!" lol After that I went on to read things like 'The French Lieutenant's Wife" and Nelson Mandela's biography. And I *enjoyed* them, lol. And I was only 11 yrs old. XD When I eventually did go to school (in highschool and college) my English teachers were surprised at my levels of English and writing. They gave me really high marks and said they admired my writing style. I'm not full of myself, really... just look at the way I write sometimes!! I can be damn lazy and write all kinds of weird run-on sentences and things. But what I'm saying is, I was able to read and write pretty well, and I never learned much about grammar at all. To be honest, my teachers would have been quite surprised to know that I didn't (and actually still don't really) know what an adverb is. Seriously. I never seriously studied all of those technical things and terms... I just did what worked, and.... it WORKED!! So... just saying... I think it's really true, all this about grammar. It's far more important to just know HOW to produce things like spoken sentences and written sentences that make sense without necessarily knowing WHY it is that way. Atleast at first. There's nothing wrong with learning the technicalities after the fact or later on into your studies, of course. But from the beginning - just learn how to do things by following examples and ingesting it all from your environment - and eventually the understanding and then the output will come!! And after that you can learn perhaps what the names are for all of those systems of talk and writing you're using... or not. Blaaaah........I can't believe I just wrote all of that!!!! Basically, I'm now just reminded of how I learned English reading and writing... and I am going to learn Japanese the same way, pretty much. Thanks for the article, awesome person of awesome!!! ^_^ Reading this, I am suddenly starting to remember how I learned my native language – English!! It is, I think, pretty similar to how you’ve just suggested we learn our second language.
I was homeschooled, and I basically taught myself everything. My mum didn’t even do a lot of the teaching; it was mostly me teaching myself. I, for the most part, only learned things I felt were important to learn and I learned those things at the pace that was comfortable for me. This worked!!
So – I learned to read and write English on my own, and at my own pace.

Because I learned outside of school and I taught myself mostly everything, I ended up learning to read and write a lot later than other kids my age. They were reading and studying boring grammar in school, but I was looking around at street signs going “wtf do all those symbols mean?” Yet, I could speak quite well and understand all kinds of technical, “advanced adult” talk.
The only grammar I remember studying, at first, was a phonetics book… and even that I picked up out of curiosity and a desire to learn to read, finally. I remember looking at it maybe only up to five times. I read things like ‘A makes this sound and Th makes that sound….’ and that was it.
Then, I read a few sentences in a children’s book. And one night, I picked up a novel (by Laura Ingalls Wilder, I believe) and I read the whole freakin thing. I was like “woah, holy frick mum, I just read me a book!!” lol
After that I went on to read things like ‘The French Lieutenant’s Wife” and Nelson Mandela’s biography. And I *enjoyed* them, lol. And I was only 11 yrs old. XD

When I eventually did go to school (in highschool and college) my English teachers were surprised at my levels of English and writing. They gave me really high marks and said they admired my writing style. I’m not full of myself, really… just look at the way I write sometimes!! I can be damn lazy and write all kinds of weird run-on sentences and things. But what I’m saying is, I was able to read and write pretty well, and I never learned much about grammar at all.
To be honest, my teachers would have been quite surprised to know that I didn’t (and actually still don’t really) know what an adverb is. Seriously. I never seriously studied all of those technical things and terms… I just did what worked, and…. it WORKED!!

So… just saying… I think it’s really true, all this about grammar. It’s far more important to just know HOW to produce things like spoken sentences and written sentences that make sense without necessarily knowing WHY it is that way. Atleast at first. There’s nothing wrong with learning the technicalities after the fact or later on into your studies, of course. But from the beginning – just learn how to do things by following examples and ingesting it all from your environment – and eventually the understanding and then the output will come!! And after that you can learn perhaps what the names are for all of those systems of talk and writing you’re using… or not.
Blaaaah……..I can’t believe I just wrote all of that!!!!

Basically, I’m now just reminded of how I learned English reading and writing… and I am going to learn Japanese the same way, pretty much. Thanks for the article, awesome person of awesome!!! ^_^

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>