Larry has put it very nicely, thank you, Larry!
I don't think we can divorce any single part of acquiring a foreign language from other parts, say, grammar rules from speaking practice. It is as wrong to favour fluency over accuracy as it is favouring accuracy over fluency.
I don't know why you, Vytenis, think Lithuanians are studying too much grammar and are incapable of communicating with English speakers. You are a case to prove the opposite. If your classmates can't speak it, other causes than those identified by you may be at work - such as low interest in the language, not gifted for languages, whatever.
I can't remember how every language I studied at school was taught, but I do know grammar was important in every one, and oral production came along when the teacher made us drill sentence patterns. I can't see how this should lead to my first tongue presiding at the grammar level of my L 2. Far from it - these drills had the effect of pushing our L 1 back and away from our conscience.
How can L2 learners UNDERSTAND native speakers that speak in their first tongue without focusing on structures, grammar, sentences, collocations, phrases? When we had acquired some foundation in our target languages, we would hear stories and fairy tales. In English, every fairy begins with "Once upon a time..." How can you render this into other lingos? In French, it would be "Il etait une fois...", in German, "es war einmal...". As a German speaker, you realise this is not an exact equivalent of "once upon a time...".
But such openers told us too that we had to mentally prepare for a locution with some special characteristics - here, the past tense. We re-learnt already-familiar verbs, this time in a modified form. We inferred most of the rules, not memorising as is so common where I teach now. the ability to infer must be honed. My CHinese students don't have this skill, and they have to be told every new verb as well as its various forms. To be told what to do, they never assume responsability for doing their own research, and thus they cannot cope with new verbs as they crop up in just about every situation conceivable. They regularly are stumped when reading sentences that have been slightly altered. They can't recognise patterns and functions. And yet, they study grammar, but not in the right way. They memorise its rules, forgetting how to apply the SVA rule in very simple present tense phrases. Can such learners understand grammatically correct English? My answer is negative!
So, Vytenis, I don't know if anybody here will satisfy you with their answer. I think, acquiring a language happens on different levels: First, the conscious level where it's the most challenging because you come to grips with new sounds and forms; then, as you become familiar with the target language it sinks slowly in and reaches a subconscious level where some of your responses are produced without thinking. With time, ever more of your target language production will occur "naturally", in my word: Subconsciously. "Natural" sounds a bit hyped to me. Is there a "natural" way of acquiring any language? If so, what's the "unnatural" way?
The most "unnatural" way to me is how Chinese study English. And, they too are merely interested in fluency, not accuracy. Unfortunately, their English is most of the time utterly foreign and incomprehensible. And they don't understand good English.
So, my take would be that Lithuanians are not that badly off. as long as you are aware of Lithuanian influence over your English you have the power to do something about it.
Don't feel ashamed about it.
How to get rid of "Lithuanian English"?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Hi Larry
>>>Almost without exception, people (both kids and adults) start to study English aroused and energized with great expectations. A few weeks or a few months later, they drag themselves to classes which they consider boring and irrelevant.
One possible reason for that may be that they are expecting too much. It is impossible to learn a language overnight or in a few weeks or months. But that's exactly what many of them expect (whether consciously or unconsciosly). However, it requires much hard work and practice (no matter whether you concentrate on accuracy and fluency). After the first excitement, there always comes some disasapointment. This is inevitable!
>>>Almost without exception, people (both kids and adults) start to study English aroused and energized with great expectations. A few weeks or a few months later, they drag themselves to classes which they consider boring and irrelevant.
One possible reason for that may be that they are expecting too much. It is impossible to learn a language overnight or in a few weeks or months. But that's exactly what many of them expect (whether consciously or unconsciosly). However, it requires much hard work and practice (no matter whether you concentrate on accuracy and fluency). After the first excitement, there always comes some disasapointment. This is inevitable!
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Call me too romantic, but I find this hard to accept, Vytenis.After the first excitement, there always comes some disasapointment. This is inevitable!
No doubt much hard work is required, but I hope, I think, I believe that most people are not put off by the requirement for hard work. I believe they understand the necessity for that, but do not like working endlessly on something that seems to them not to be getting them somewhere. Now, if you respond that language learning is not linear, and that there are bound to be periods of time when they don't think they're making progress, I'll agree...that is inevitable. However those are temporary, and perhaps disappointing, still not demoralizing. But I have had rooms full of people working their *beep*s off and having a wonderful time doing it because they could plainly see that what they were doing was valuable to their acquisition of English. But Present, Practice, Produce (in any version) doesn't cut it with them, and I don't blame them for thinking so. We (teachers) must not excuse ourselves by thinking there is no other way. 
Larry Latham
Don't worry, Larry, I am a romantic too. I have to be... Otherwise I would have lost any interest in what I am doing long ago 
I teach the non-English-major students at the university and I know all too well those symptoms you have described so nicely: indifference and apathy. All the students at out university have English as a mandatory subject in their 1-st and 2-nd years of studies. However, many of them are so poor at English, their English is so "unnatural" that I get desperate! (I guess something very much like the Chinese students Roger mentioned). They had studied English for years at school, so one may assume that they should have some decent command of it when they enter the university. (After all, nowadays the higher education and not knowing English should sound incompatible!) However, most do not. So what can I do, how can I teach them if they failed to pick up decent English skills at school in so may years? It is not possible for me to drill all the English gramar into their heads during these two years! Such thing does not make much sense for me anyway So I am forced to look for some alternatives, some ideas that do make sense for me. To make the best out of the bad deal. After all, the purpose should be to teach them something, not to kill time. At least SOMETHING! So I have to be an idealist, you see. Otherwise, I would just lose any interest and "go with the flow". And in such case I believe students get even more bored.
Coming back to your question why the students lose interest. Another possible answer that came to my mind is that we make English too much of a school subject. The more human communication will be there and the less will be formalized teacher-student communication, the more will students enjoy it. We learn a language (no matter, native or not) by natural communication. The main purpose in the langugae classes should be to understand others and be understood, not learn things for the sake of learning things! So the more elements of natural communication our language teaching will have, the more will students enjoy our classes. I remember when I was studying English at the university, boy how much did we enjoy our visiting American instructors! And was it worlds apart from the boring Lithuanian teachers!
On the more cautious note, however, it is easier said than done. I all too often find myself teaching the school subject instead of "communicating naurally" in my classes
I have to be... Otherwise I would have lost any interest in what I am doing long ago I teach the non-English-major students at the university and I know all too well those symptoms you have described so nicely: indifference and apathy. All the students at out university have English as a mandatory subject in their 1-st and 2-nd years of studies. However, many of them are so poor at English, their English is so "unnatural" that I get desperate! (I guess something very much like the Chinese students Roger mentioned). They had studied English for years at school, so one may assume that they should have some decent command of it when they enter the university. (After all, nowadays the higher education and not knowing English should sound incompatible!) However, most do not. So what can I do, how can I teach them if they failed to pick up decent English skills at school in so may years? It is not possible for me to drill all the English gramar into their heads during these two years! Such thing does not make much sense for me anyway So I am forced to look for some alternatives, some ideas that do make sense for me. To make the best out of the bad deal. After all, the purpose should be to teach them something, not to kill time. At least SOMETHING! So I have to be an idealist, you see. Otherwise, I would just lose any interest and "go with the flow". And in such case I believe students get even more bored. Coming back to your question why the students lose interest. Another possible answer that came to my mind is that we make English too much of a school subject. The more human communication will be there and the less will be formalized teacher-student communication, the more will students enjoy it. We learn a language (no matter, native or not) by natural communication. The main purpose in the langugae classes should be to understand others and be understood, not learn things for the sake of learning things! So the more elements of natural communication our language teaching will have, the more will students enjoy our classes. I remember when I was studying English at the university, boy how much did we enjoy our visiting American instructors! And was it worlds apart from the boring Lithuanian teachers!
On the more cautious note, however, it is easier said than done. I all too often find myself teaching the school subject instead of "communicating naurally" in my classes
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I think I agree, Vytenis. Language teaching isn't like any other school subject. I think educators sometimes don't realise that comminication isn't something you learn from a book, or from learning rules - like maths. Its something you learn just by doing it! Grammar is useful to speed things up, but often courses offer grammar as the main course. It's only a catalyst - you need to add it to 'a reaction' for it to have an effect! Communication first, grammar second, I say!
Regarding, your students, they've probably been taught a great deal of grammar already, so much so that they can probably explain the rules to you! It's a rubbish start but at least you can start teaching 'language', without having to put much effort into the grammar part.
Iain
Regarding, your students, they've probably been taught a great deal of grammar already, so much so that they can probably explain the rules to you! It's a rubbish start but at least you can start teaching 'language', without having to put much effort into the grammar part.
Iain
I appreciate your compliments, Larry. I don't know if they are so lucky or not, you have to come over here and ask them. They wouldn't tell me 
Concerning your remark, Iain, I think we are definitely on the same wawelength on this one. Unfortunately this is where Roger and me could not fully see each other's point I'm afraid. I mean, I'm NOT AGAINST grammar, I just don't believe in teaching grammar A-PRIORI, if you know what I mean. That's what is screwing things up all over the place! I mean, if you are learning a language as a professional linguist, as a langugae researcher, as a theorist then obviously it may be more useful to learn it a-priori. But who on earth has created this misconception that we all have to study a language like the professional linguists
Of course, this might be possible too, but not everyone is a born linguist 
Language is a skill just like driving a car. I am a beginner in driving myself. And when I am learning to successfully manoeuver my car in order to avoid accidents, then it is totally irrelevant whether or not I know all the laws of physics involved. You don't have to be a good physicist in order to avoid accidents - you just have to be a good driver. It's just your skill that matters 
Concerning your remark, Iain, I think we are definitely on the same wawelength on this one. Unfortunately this is where Roger and me could not fully see each other's point I'm afraid. I mean, I'm NOT AGAINST grammar, I just don't believe in teaching grammar A-PRIORI, if you know what I mean. That's what is screwing things up all over the place! I mean, if you are learning a language as a professional linguist, as a langugae researcher, as a theorist then obviously it may be more useful to learn it a-priori. But who on earth has created this misconception that we all have to study a language like the professional linguists
Of course, this might be possible too, but not everyone is a born linguist Language is a skill just like driving a car. I am a beginner in driving myself
. And when I am learning to successfully manoeuver my car in order to avoid accidents, then it is totally irrelevant whether or not I know all the laws of physics involved. You don't have to be a good physicist in order to avoid accidents - you just have to be a good driver. It's just your skill that matters I read something on the web which made a lot of sense. I wish I could find it again! Some famous polyglot who had mastered over 25 languages gave some advice on language learning. He said first off, get a grammar book and read up on the basics - he didn't say spend 7 years learning all there is to know! Then find some real language and start translating. The last piece of advice I remember was: when you come across new vocabulary write a short story/paragraph using the word so that it sinks into your brain.
I've studied a few languages; I think I could cover the basics of any European language in about 1 hour, though a lot more for other languages, but I wouldn't want to spend several years covering grammar like they do in some parts of Asia. Although to be fair I should add - I, unlike a lot of students, actually enjoy foreign languages.
25, sheesh!
Iain
I've studied a few languages; I think I could cover the basics of any European language in about 1 hour, though a lot more for other languages, but I wouldn't want to spend several years covering grammar like they do in some parts of Asia. Although to be fair I should add - I, unlike a lot of students, actually enjoy foreign languages.
25, sheesh!
Iain
Iain,
I think it might have been the great Russian linguist Shcherba, who said something like that: "when you learn the basics of grammar, you have to start reading a lot. You have to choose some kind of easy literature, like detective stories or adventure stories. It has to be interesting, the plot must capture you. Don't try to understand every single word, but try to guess from the context as much a spossible and look into the dictionary as little as possible. The key thing is that you have to be genuinely interested in what you are reading about, i.e. not read just for the sake of learning the new words. This is the main catalist. It is also obvious, Shcherba continues, that the words, phrases, expressions, idioms and grammatical patterns which are the most frequently used, will be the ones which you will pick up the most quickly. Th emore you read, the more you learn. Your success will only depend on how much you read."
I think it might have been the great Russian linguist Shcherba, who said something like that: "when you learn the basics of grammar, you have to start reading a lot. You have to choose some kind of easy literature, like detective stories or adventure stories. It has to be interesting, the plot must capture you. Don't try to understand every single word, but try to guess from the context as much a spossible and look into the dictionary as little as possible. The key thing is that you have to be genuinely interested in what you are reading about, i.e. not read just for the sake of learning the new words. This is the main catalist. It is also obvious, Shcherba continues, that the words, phrases, expressions, idioms and grammatical patterns which are the most frequently used, will be the ones which you will pick up the most quickly. Th emore you read, the more you learn. Your success will only depend on how much you read."
That very technique worked for me with Polish, which I cope quite well with, despite never having had a lesson. After about a year here, I started puzzling through newspaper stories, but quickly realised that the vocabulary was too tough - I couldn't piece together enough to get any more than the most general idea of what a particular story was about. Then one day I picked up a novel by Robert Ludlum (an author I've never read in English) and have never looked back.
I can say with some confidence that, with the exception of "classic" literature (which I can't bear in any language, particularly the ones I understand ) and pieces written entirely in slang or dialect, I can read pretty much anything in Polish without even noticing that I'm reading a "foreign" language.
Massive amounts of reading is a great help for students doing the Cambridge exams, too. Not only the Reading paper, but also cloze exercises and even sentence transformations become that much easier when they read a lot. They can't always explain how they know an answer is right, but they do know it's right.
On the other hand, I also know from colleagues' experience that this doesn't work for everyone...
I can say with some confidence that, with the exception of "classic" literature (which I can't bear in any language, particularly the ones I understand
) and pieces written entirely in slang or dialect, I can read pretty much anything in Polish without even noticing that I'm reading a "foreign" language.Massive amounts of reading is a great help for students doing the Cambridge exams, too. Not only the Reading paper, but also cloze exercises and even sentence transformations become that much easier when they read a lot. They can't always explain how they know an answer is right, but they do know it's right.
On the other hand, I also know from colleagues' experience that this doesn't work for everyone...
I think it MUST work! Of course, I admit that every person is different and there are some individual variantions in the ability to pick up a language, but the general idea is the same. Just like the absolute majority of us acquire their native language by communicating, they can also pick up the foreign language provided they are immersed in and surrounded by an authentic communication. Especially in the young age.szwagier wrote: Massive amounts of reading is a great help for students doing the Cambridge exams, too. Not only the Reading paper, but also cloze exercises and even sentence transformations become that much easier when they read a lot. They can't always explain how they know an answer is right, but they do know it's right.
On the other hand, I also know from colleagues' experience that this doesn't work for everyone...
P.S.
Authentic communication is a very broad concept. It may include everyting: not just informal speaking, but also reading, writing emails, watching movies, listening to lectures etc. Even studying grammar!!!
<B>As long as it is done for the sake of accomplishing the real life tasks, not for the sake of learning langugae itself.</B>I think, VYtenis, that there is not a lot of disagreement between the two of us, even when it comes to grammar. Some of the replies posted here reminded me of my daily grind teaching Chinese children.
I can't teach them grammar only, nor would I be supposed to. This is the "prerogative" of my Chinese colleagues - who, unfortunately, lack the ability to deliver. Their grammar is hopeless, and they don't know English well enough (most of the time, yes, there are some different specimen that I can laud). Often, I find myself doing remedial work, and believe me, without grammar this is a thing impossible! How do you explain to a Chinese English learner that there just isn't a "I means/you means..."? This is a bizarre phenomenon I have discovered a few years back - "mean" is the only verb some of these students always conjugate in the first and second persons with an S added to 'mean". Why? It probably is because they confuse the NOUN "means", which always has a final S, no matter whether it's singular or plural. THis is just one of many regular faulty features of Chinese English.
Now, can we liven up the study of English? Of course, we can! I succeed quite well - I do PE with primary school kids, I teach kindergarten English learners how to use their bodies, we do songs, - in other words: I use English as a medium of instruction. This way, they are not primarily concerned with learning vocables; rather, they are getting information that they have to tansform into action, and the effect is that language gets internalised permanently.
I think if all kids could get a second or foreign language as medium of instruction at their kindergarten, they would go on to primary school with a mind awakened to the functions of that language. Studying grammar would then become a necessity so they could handle the volume of vocables and sentence structures that they would come across in textbooks.
I also think, literature should be their weekly diet, so they can develop a feel for a foreign language and the native speakers that use it.
In Lithuania, I would introduce geography and/or political or social science taught in English to English majors.
I can't teach them grammar only, nor would I be supposed to. This is the "prerogative" of my Chinese colleagues - who, unfortunately, lack the ability to deliver. Their grammar is hopeless, and they don't know English well enough (most of the time, yes, there are some different specimen that I can laud). Often, I find myself doing remedial work, and believe me, without grammar this is a thing impossible! How do you explain to a Chinese English learner that there just isn't a "I means/you means..."? This is a bizarre phenomenon I have discovered a few years back - "mean" is the only verb some of these students always conjugate in the first and second persons with an S added to 'mean". Why? It probably is because they confuse the NOUN "means", which always has a final S, no matter whether it's singular or plural. THis is just one of many regular faulty features of Chinese English.
Now, can we liven up the study of English? Of course, we can! I succeed quite well - I do PE with primary school kids, I teach kindergarten English learners how to use their bodies, we do songs, - in other words: I use English as a medium of instruction. This way, they are not primarily concerned with learning vocables; rather, they are getting information that they have to tansform into action, and the effect is that language gets internalised permanently.
I think if all kids could get a second or foreign language as medium of instruction at their kindergarten, they would go on to primary school with a mind awakened to the functions of that language. Studying grammar would then become a necessity so they could handle the volume of vocables and sentence structures that they would come across in textbooks.
I also think, literature should be their weekly diet, so they can develop a feel for a foreign language and the native speakers that use it.
In Lithuania, I would introduce geography and/or political or social science taught in English to English majors.
Thanks Roger for your remarks. I do agree with what you say. However, I am still unsatisfied with my present situation and I am going to keep on searching where my education failed me. I have started the new thread "translator's pains" in order to delve into this subject from a little different perspective.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)