Let Go of the Matrix! - the non-grammar approach

[abufletcher]

How about this one:

"Grammar is a sticky residue left behind by the processes of human interaction. It is extremely difficult to get off one's shoes."

-- Abufletcher

[woodcutter]

I'm much too busy for this, but really.

Do you imagine that a "no grammar" approach is in some way a new idea?

Do you think that all those who have tried it have had remarkable results?

Your students have lots of grammar, wot they speak each day. Unchecked, they will slap it on English, unless they happen to be saying some routine you have ground into their brains.

[abufletcher]

The idea of teaching traditionally conceived of Language without talking about grammar in class is certainly nothing new (but still relatively rare in the world).

On the other hand, the possibility that Language as a "grand system" with a single coherent grammar may be nothing more that a fanciful wish on the part of linguists is indeed relative new -- and in my view extremely exciting. In this view the reason to adopt a "no grammar" approach is because language-in-the-world (as opposed to some abstract L-anguage) doesn't have "a grammar" in the orthodox sense of that term.

Of course if you had read the entire thread you would have already known that.

Now it's my turn.

[Stephen Jones]

O

n the other hand, the possibility that Language as a "grand system" with a single coherent grammar may be nothing more that a fanciful wish on the part of linguists is indeed relative new -- and in my view extremely exciting.

And of course totally zany. And not that new. Connectionism is basically behaviorism and the Blank Slate repackaged to run on parallel computers. And the standard answers of the paucity of the input and the fact that wildly different amounts of input produce the more or less the same effect still apply.

The fact that the air I breathe and the hamburgers I eat both come in "chunks" of different pre-packaged chemicals doesn't mean that aroma therapy is going to replace the periodic table any time soon.

In this view the reason to adopt a "no grammar" approach is because language-in-the-world (as opposed to some abstract L-anguage) doesn't have "a grammar" in the orthodox sense of that term.

As this last statement is so evidently untrue it would be a very bad reason for using a 'no grammar' approach.

Your main problem abufletcher is that you mix everything up so your ideas come out looking like the picture of the tangled ball of string you mentioned earlier. The rules that we use when we make language are not necessarily the same as those we are conscious of, and neither need have anything to do with the way we approach second language learning.

[mesmark]

... Do you imagine that a "no grammar" approach is in some way a new idea?
Do you think that all those who have tried it have had remarkable results? ...

Strong argument. I take it all back. My turn
The world is flat! Man will never fly! Darwin's theory totally explains how an amino acid turns into DNA!
Why discuss anything to the contrary?

No where did anyone claim they had a revolutionary idea and again, reading will show we didn't deny the existence of grammar. We're just trying to discuss the very real possiblity of another way of teaching. If you have a good argument against it, I'd love to hear it.

I also believe that, just like super heros, teaching methods all have their strengths and weaknesses. The battle is won together. Abu goes the way of no grammar. I like grammar after the fact. Apply grammar to speech, don't use grammar to teach.

It was said that my model is concidered good practice but I was hoping people would see it as good teaching and learning. Or point out the flaws, not just reject it and ask me to accept that.

[woodcutter]

My argument, unlike the diagrams, is of undoubted value. Not only are such theories not new, many teachers apply them by default, more or less, because they don't know how to teach grammar.

I beg of you, learn some obscure Dravidian language or something for a spell. Do not read about the grammar. Choose a teacher who will not explain it, not one little bit. See where you get.

Grammar is the way the words get put together to produce meaning, the way they inflect to produce meaning. You will find that in your language study, you chuck your non Indo-European words together English fashion most of the time, and no soul will understand you. You will hate your class.

[Stephen Jones]

Strong argument. I take it all back. My turn
The world is flat! Man will never fly! Darwin's theory totally explains how an amino acid turns into DNA!

You haven't done very well on your turn I'm afraid.

Darwinism offers no explanation for how amino acids turn into DNA. The double helix of DNA was discovered 94 years after the origin of species and strongly backed up Darwinian theory because it provided the chemical mechanism for the theory. In Darwin's time they were under the impression that the cell was the smallest unit of life (we now know that the unicellular organism is an incredibly complicated mechanism and the result of aeons of evolution). He stated very clearly that the theory of Natural Selection had nothing to say about the origin of the cell, but dealt with the evolution of different life forms once life had come into being. There is no evolutionary scientist I have read who has ever suggested the contrary.

It was said that my model is concidered good practice but I was hoping people would see it as good teaching and learning. Or point out the flaws, not just reject it and ask me to accept that.

Abu hijacked your thread, as he has been doing to pretty well every other one on the forum, but where have you clearly stated what your model is? We haven't rejected your model; so far we haven't been aware you have one.

[mesmark]

Strong argument. I take it all back. My turn
The world is flat! Man will never fly! Darwin's theory totally explains how an amino acid turns into DNA!

You haven't done very well on your turn I'm afraid.

Darwinism offers no explanation for how amino acids turn into DNA. The double helix of DNA was discovered 94 years after the origin of species and strongly backed up Darwinian theory because it provided the chemical mechanism for the theory. In Darwin's time they were under the impression that the cell was the smallest unit of life (we now know that the unicellular organism is an incredibly complicated mechanism and the result of aeons of evolution). He stated very clearly that the theory of Natural Selection had nothing to say about the origin of the cell, but dealt with the evolution of different life forms once life had come into being. There is no evolutionary scientist I have read who has ever suggested the contrary.

Sorry, I should have written this is sarcasm. I'm well aware of the fact that there is no Evolutionist/Darwinian-explanation for how the first cell replicated without DNA, but maybe you're not. That was the point. You can't explain how that first miraculous cell that mystically appeared replicated without DNA. In the light of new information we see that there are some rocks still unturned, even though some were so sure of themselves before... There are more than one theory and others are gaining a foot-hold. But, you'll have to check with the non-evolutionists for that.

Natural Selection had nothing to say about the origin of the cell, but dealt with the evolution of different life forms once life had come into being.

So sure of ourselves... You might want to check that. Darwin states that his theory applies only to micro-evolutionary changes in species and says nothing for macro-jumps (ie evolution of new organisms.)

We haven't rejected your model; so far we haven't been aware you have one.

Now, it is I how doesn't have the time for this.

The idea to bring the origin of the species up was not to discuss it, but to show simply denying ideas to the contrary doesn't make them false. 'It won't work! You can't do it! Grammar is necessary for instruction and comprehension! lalalalalalalalalalalalala...'

[lolwhites]

Mesmark, people who successfully challenge orthodoxy do so by proving their case, not by slagging off anyone who disagreed with them. Comparing SJ and woody to flat-earthers and accusing them of going "lalalalalalala" does not consitute positive evidence for your analysis.

Now, I've had numerous disagreements with these two, but I've always found it generally productive to actually engage with them seriously. You say "denying ideas to the contrary doesn't make them false"; true, but it applies to all ideas and not just yours.

BTW SJ did more than just deny your ideas - he made very relevant points about minimal input leading to language acquisition which noone seems to have answered.

the possibility that Language as a "grand system" with a single coherent grammar may be nothing more that a fanciful wish on the part of linguists is indeed relative new -- and in my view extremely exciting.

It certainly has the potential to be extremely exciting, but that doesn't make it correct. Language teaching is a graveyard of theories and methods, partly IMO because of the tendency of teachers (and publishers) to get overly excited and uncritical about anything "new" without asking too many awkward questions about little details like rigorous research methods and hard evidence.

[mesmark]

Ok...

Here's one example of no-grammar instruction with minimal input leading to aquisition and new usage in one of my classes:
I taught showing pictures and through other activities
'There is ...' There are some..' (about one year of just that, not constant just reviewed occasionally as is)
'Where is ...?' 'It's by../on.../in... (about 2 years of just that, not constant just reviewed occasionally as is)

When the class started they were 1st graders. They have not touched a book and I have not so much as explained the difference between a subject and a verb, a noun and an adjective, making a question or a negative to this group. Three years into lessons once a week for 50 minutes, I begin to put these chunks together. The goal of the lesson was to get them to put the 'there is/are ..' chunk together with the prepositions of place.

It went well and after a few examples I showed a picture with a cartoon airplane in the sky in the sky. I was going for 'there is a plane - in the sky' and what I got from one student was 'there is a plane - flying across the sky. It looks (asks me how to say funny/silly) silly. The wheels are green.'

After that and my praise, the students started adding the prepostion of movement chunks in. I taught prepostions of movement as a set of vocabulary with 'He's running across the bridge.' and so on. (for about 6 months.) The 'looks like' was a different set and I had never taught anything associated with the last part individually.

This is what I do and this is where I get with my method in my classes. I work in the grammar translation capital of the world (maybe ) so I have a deep loathing of grammar as a teaching method. I'm looking to and working on going another way and to quote myself from my own thread several times

So.... Does anyone else teach without grammar? What are some ideas and methodologies for getting rid of grammar as a tool for language learning? Can it be done?

Where are the holes in this approach?

I'm not here trying to convert anyone. The reason I posted this is to sort of try and get an understanding myself of what I'm doing and get some feedback about it.

everyone keeps asking how do we teach without grammar. My question is why do we need to teach using grammar. Is it because it is needed? or is it because that's an easy/quick way to teach it?

I will give you that my reasearch is both limited and biased. However, I'm not trying to sell you and I'm not asking for books to be pulled or re-written. I'm just asking, in earnest, for feedback, ideas, thoughts to help me, and maybe someone else, be a better teacher...

[mesmark]

Mesmark, people who successfully challenge orthodoxy do so by proving their case, not by slagging off anyone who disagreed with them. Comparing SJ and woody to flat-earthers and accusing them of going "lalalalalalala" does not consitute positive evidence for your analysis.

I have given 3 examples of how I teach in this thread. Now, I have stated myself that research is limited. The'lalalalala' is directed at the fact that those appear to have been ignored as 'evidence' or reasoned as anything but.

[lolwhites]

I've nothing against the examples you've given so far of your teaching, in fact I said that they didn't seem that radical and many teachers (including myself) would regard them as good practice. We all teach elementary students to "put chunks together" and I don't think anyone here seriously proposes sitting down with complete beginners and explaining complex metalanguage to them from the word go. If that's a "non-grammar" approach then it's been pretty much the standard in every elementary MFL classroom in the western world since about 1970.

However, you make it sound like your students never go beyond using substitutions to produce single sentence utterances. I'm sure that's not the case, but I'll need a lot more to convince me. I'd be particularly interested to know what you mean by "grammar as a teaching method". If you mean standing in front of a group of students talking at them about not using the Present Perfect with definite past time references then, believe me, I loathe it too. When I "teach grammar" it's more about drawing attention to what things mean in context rather than the jigsaw approach of "you can't use X with Y".

[mesmark]

yes and yes. Like you said, what I'm doing with children classes isn't anything new, but I thought at some point I was going to hit a wall with them and have to sit them down and start with the explanation...
I am...
You are...
He is ...
With be verbs we invert the subject and be verb to form the....
I haven't even sat them down to say that 'am, is, are' are all the same (route) word.

The group with the plane example is about a year past that example and they have entered into a Spectrum Reader. We look at the pictures and discuss them, read the book and answer the questions. I don't explain any 'why' and they don't ever ask. I keep feeling i should go back and explain some grammar to them but they don't seem to need me to. They are drawing conclusions from using and swaping chunks on their own. I teach in an all-English classroom, no Japanese in class, so if they are translating, it's individually and that's fine.

one small sample of an example of what I mean: my students go from
He's a cook. -->> He's cooking. -->> He can cook. without any explanation of the present participle or infinitive with the modal, obviously not using those terms even if I did draw out the grammar template for them. They start out with sentences like 'He can cooking.' But with time they drop the 'ing' on their own. I usually let that learning mistake go but I sometimes use recast when they make the mistake. Most of the time I just try to get as many examples out as I can myself so they have the exposure to the correct form. Please give me that this is 'one small sample of an example of what I mean' and that students build up to 'There is a man standing over there that has just made some hotdogs.' The problem is covering the teaching involved to get there is too much to write down.

Lol said this is good practice, and I know the 'grammar' is there when I start working with and using '~er' to compare 2 things and then ask the students to do it. However, I don't then go to the book and do the normal grammar explanation. We just keep going.

Like I said I was expecting to hit a wall but I haven't hit that wall and I'm wondering if it's needed at any point before advanced levels. I've started applying the same 'don't bother with explaining the grammar as a template for making language' approach to college classes and adult classes. (Now, those 2 groups have had so much grammar already it's proabably not nec. for me to refresh it again. ) I'm doing the same sort of teaching now with my nursing college classes on a little higher English level. I'm also trying to get them to let go of applying grammar to materials and take them as is and work with language use. (I posted that before)

So, I'm glad and I think we agree about not using 'grammar as a template for forming language' when introducing new language, again nothing new. I'm justing going one more step beyond that model of good pratice, again nothing new. I was hoping to get some feedback from someone who is doing this. This thread was directed to Abu who had made reference to his teaching without grammar. It wasn't for Abu specifically, but I just want to point out the thread wasn't hijacked by Abu. I would still like to know if there is research or 'evidence' that I'm doing a disservice to my students by not teaching them grammar templates. Obviously, I will take any advice into concideration and apply that to me, my classes and my situation as the case is different for everyone everywhere.

[mesmark]

However, you make it sound like your students never go beyond using substitutions to produce single sentence utterances. I'm sure that's not the case, but I'll need a lot more to convince me.

The single utterances and chunks get strung together and mixed and matched like the quilted patchwork example from before to express thoughts, events and describe things in English. I've only been teaching for 7 years and a little over 4 at my current place so I don't have the end procuct to display just yet nor the whole system worked out to the end. I'll go back and look over some of my notes and see what I can turn up on this or see if I can't make a good future projection.

[woodcutter]

Do you think it matters if your guinea pigs, I mean students, are native speakers of a language that has very different grammar from English? Would that affect things? Have you tried to learn a "difficult" language?

Only students who work outside of class improve to any extent, unless your classes are extraordinarily lengthy. Therefore, most of them will be getting grammatical explanations elsewhere. Coming to see the monkey-like native speaker who chats and gives no grammar is an old tradition, and if the grammar input elsewhere is truly OK, and recent, as it so often isn't, then why not? It seemed to me that people here are proposing that grammatical explanations are not useful at all, ever, which is a piece of insanity always fashionable with very low-level grumpy students, and therefore an idea that will never go away. If you are proposing that we sometimes teach too much explicit grammar, or we teach it too routinely, or that we concentrate too hard on things which are not that important, or now and then give too much metalanguage - well, so what?