Korean Job Discussion Forums

[alpope23]

Which do you feel is more important?

I think vocabulary is much more important than grammar. If I say "Movies Saturday to go us" you can understand what I'm asking.
"Would you like to go to the. . . " embarassed trailing off of sentence because I don't know a word for movies.

I also think there should be a class here on "How you say" like European esl'er use! "You Americans, You are all so. . . How you say. . . {insert hurtfull part of speech here}"

Thank goodness for the edit button, I misspelled "grammer"

[cubanlord]

[ajuma]

I SO agree that when a student is first learning a language that vocab is a lot more important than grammar. I recently started studying Korean (AGAIN!!! ) and my teacher starts right in teaching grammar! I said "Wait a minute!! I don't even know how to say "Where is the bank" or "Where is the post office" or "Do you have toilet paper"! I don't want to learn anything but basic grammar until my vocab is at a higher level!!"

[cubanlord]

[semphoon]

Vocabulary at first and then grammar once the student has developed.

Putting grammar before vocabulary is like telling someone to make a cake (the rules and procedures) but not giving them the ingredients (the things that are used to make the cake).

Grammar is so important if you want to become good at a language. You can spend you life saying �bank, where?� �toilet, where?� �yesterday, what do?� tomorrow, what do?� and you will be understood. But you should actually learn how to construct sentences.

[alpope23]

[cubanlord]

[gang ah jee]

'Grammar' as we teach it is basically a shortcut - a mental model - for learners to fit words into. It can't tell the whole story though, and the more you look into it, the more you realise that it doesn't actually exist!

Grammar is a tool to help you learn language. Vocabulary is the language.

Plus, Paul Nation is the director of my MA programme. I'm practically legally obligated to come out on the side of vocab.

[daskalos]

How about a little compromise. We'll hold off on actually teaching the grammar until they have an adequate supply of words to use, but while we're teaching them the words, we'll model the correct grammar. "This is a dog. These are dogs."

At some point, though, we will indeed teach the grammar. Having modeled it will make that easier, but grammar is essential. I can't be the only one of the planet learning a second language who needs to know what verbs are transitive, which nouns don't need indefinite articles and when, or how to express possession? (Demonic or otherwise.)

I think turning vocab/grammar into an either/or proposition cheats the student. To communicate rudimentary ideas, do whatever -- smoke signals, pantomime, "You, I like it?" But if we're teaching the language, grammar is as indispensible as vocab, even if not straight out of the gate.

[Woland]

An alternative way to look at this question is memory-based language system v. rule-based language system. Peter Skehan has argued that our knowledge of language consists of these two separate systems and that development of both is necessary for fluent, accurate use of properly selected language.

Individual vocabulary items are part of the memory-based system, but so are larger chunks of language pre-assembled for automatic use (e.g., How are you?, I'd like..., etc.). The memory-based system thus includes both vocabulary and grammar.

It is our memory-based knowledge that allows us to be fluent users of language (basically, there's no way we could talk or listen as fast as we do if we had to process all language by rules). The rule-based system allows us to expand on what is in the memory-based system and use language in new ways - new contexts or saying new things.

Students who develop strong rule-based knowledge without developing their memory-based systems (like Korean students) tend to lack fluency in production, but can be quite accurate when they produce. Students who build a memory-based system without developing rule-based knowledge are often effective communicators, but with extensive accuracy problems. They also tend to fossilize very early.

The two systems feed each other and both need to be developed. But it may be of greater value to us to work on beginners memory-based system more. We should, though, make sure it includes not just indvidual vocabulary items, but also grammatical stems for sentences, collocates, and other patterns of language use. This focus will give students something to say and something to analyze in order to develop their rule based system. Over time, the interweaving of teaching the two systems should be closer and closer.

For a good resource on how to approach doing this, see Dave Willis' Rules, patterns and words: Grammar and lexis in English language teaching from Cambridge University Press.