Krashen and Terrell's Natural Approach emphasizes that "the essence of language is meaning. Vocabulary, not grammar, is the heart of language.” What is your take on this? Can you think of evidence to either support or refute this statement? Give specific examples related to language learning that illustrate this truth or that provide counterevidence to it.
(Additional comments on this post no longer earn points. Please choose a more recent entry).
I don’t think you can say one is more important than the other. I think the order in which you learn them is relevant. First, I think you should learn basic vocabulary with a focus on grammar, because then you can always add more vocabulary (use a dictionary). I don’t think it’s very useful if you only know words but can’t get your point across because of the grammar (it’s almost like trying to use google translate or some electronic translator, sometimes it just doesn’t make sense without correct grammar). This happens a lot with instructions (for example “Forbidden use changeable battery”). It’s not the best example, but in my opinion I don’t think vocabulary is “the heart of language”-didn’t Gouin try that and failed?
ReplyDelete-norma
It may be that the essence of language is meaning, but that meaning is very hard to convey without grammar, no matter how many words you know. "I need that book for my German class tomorrow" vs "Book my that class need tomorrow German I". The grammar supports and clarifies the meaning. I know in my own case, if not given at least a basic grammar structure, my brain will put everything in the order of English, using English rules and basically thinking in English with L2 words placed where English words should be. It also seems like it would be easier to start from the beginning with simple concepts and simple grammar structure that eventually grows complex instead of later, after months or years of using the L2 a certain way, going back and trying to re-learn it. As mentioned above, Gouin tried memorizing the dictionary, and was still unable to communicate.
ReplyDeleteKailey Watson
I think that if you do not have grammar, you do not have meaning. The things that I have found the most difficult about learning another language, and that my students have difficulty with, are verbs and grammar. If communication is the only benchmark for whether or not someone has 'acquired' another language, pantomine and vocabulary would suffice in most instances. Grammar is what links separate words into an understandable idea, rather than a random and incomprehensible jumble. It is difficult to convey ideas without some understanding of the SVO order that a language has, as incorrect grammar leads to mistaken meanings in sentences. While there are sometimes similar grammar rules in sister languages, in my case, Spanish grammar is sufficiently different from English grammar to make it difficult for me to communicate in Spanish without knowing something about the use of objects in Spanish. My vocabulary in Spanish is much greater than my grammar competence and performance, and without the grammar I might as well be using a dictionary to communicate.
ReplyDeleteI think that I would have to completely agree with that statement. Grammar of course is necessary to speak a language but I believe that can only get you so far. I know from experience that although I know and understand all the grammar rules of Spanish but when I open my mouth to speak I get caught on how to say things like "table cloth" or "printer" or many other words that I have not acquired in my 5 years of classroom spanish. I think that is the real difference between a native speaker and a non-native speaker. I probably know more grammar rules than many native speakers but they have grown up having their world in Spanish and being extremely better than me because they can speak without having to stop and think of how to express the word they are thinking of. I feel like grammar is the frame work but the vocabulary is the meat. Both are necessary but in my opinion vocabulary is the essence of the language
ReplyDeleteLanguage is like a house Grammar represents its pillars and vocab represents its windows. No one can decode the language without words or structure. Any learner should marry both elements to understand the language in order to master it. I remember that one of my friends approached me to teach her English for her collage exam which she failed before. Once I started teaching her, I realized that she knows the rules pretty well, but still she could not pass. Then I discovered that she her vocabulary are very basic, and that she could not comprehend the exams sentences in order to analyze their grammar and fulfill the task. I failed to get her through the test because it is impossible to help someone improve his or her vocab within a week. My friend failed the exam twice, and the last time I saw her she was trying for the third time. The problem was that the English course was one of the general courses that all college students should pass. However, my friend was concerned about passing, but not learning so she did not make any effort to upgrade her vocab level, and her grammar knowledge could not help her. Moreover, many times through any grammar course we I was encountering cases were the rules can be modified to adapt to the context which depend mostly on the student’s comprehension of the whole text. How would anyone do that without at least a basic vocabulary inventory? It is absolutely impossible. This is why grammar books try to complement their rules with a huge number of different examples, passages and exercises. On the other hand, reading books tend to touch different grammatical rules and apply them throughout the passages.
ReplyDeleteWhile vocabulary is indeed important and it is vital to students' success in being able to acheive, vocabulary alone cannot provide mastery of a language. A student can learn and memorize numerous vocabulary words, but even if the student could learn a vast amount of words, without grammar, these words would not be nearly as useful. The problem lies in this: when one is not provided with the grammar of the L2 they are learning, they will tend to take the words they know in that L2, and plug them into the grammar of their L1. If the two languages are similar enough, the L2 learner may be understood by native speakers of that language. However, if the L2 and L1 grammar are more distant from each other grammatically, the L2 learner may speak in such a way that causes confusion with native speakers of the language, or perhaps may even lead the native speakers of the language to think of an entirely different meaning. For example if instead of saying "Jessica kicked me," the L2 learner switched the subject and object and said "I kicked Jessica," the L2 learner may be met with scolding rather than the sympathy they had expected. (Note: If there are any Jessica's in this class, I apologize and do not mean to imply anything by the use of your name.)
ReplyDeleteI have seen the importance of grammar in my own signing and the signing of othres. I grew up learning Pidgin Signed English, which is somewhere between Signed English (signs put into English word order) and ASL (American Sign Langauge, which is its own language with grammatical structure very different from English). Thankfully, Deaf people and those in the Deaf community who sign are accustomed to having to switch between English and ASL, so PSE can generally be understood, but it is not accepted as a langauge by most speakers of ASL.
Further, now that I am gaining more understanding of how ASL works, I have started to see, in listening to a speaker or preacher and watching the interpreter signing, that if the interpreter is not using true ASL, it often means much of the message is dropped. If they were to use Signed Exact English, they would also be able to get the concepts accross, provided that the people they are interpreting for have a good command of English. However, if they use ASL, the concepts are shown much more clearly and can be communicated at a rate that allows the interpreter to better keep up with the speaker or preacher. This means the people watching the interpreter gain so much more from what is being said.
Thus while the vocabulary words are needed, grammar is crucial.
I think vocabulary and grammar are equally important for learning a language. If we only know the words without certain rules, we cannot convey our meaning effectively. For example, unlike Chinese, English has inflectional affix to indicate different number, person, mood or tense, and has many prepositions and conjunctions to show the logical connections. A sentence like “he go a park” may make us wonder whether he had went to a park or he will go to a park in the future. A simple fact can be expressed with several words because we can guess and know the main ideas. If we want to describe something abstract or want to argue with reasonable and logical thinking, the use of precise grammar will help it make sense. So grammar is necessary to learn.
ReplyDeleteAnd from the practical use of language, remembering all the grammar rules is not enough. We also need to learn new words as many as possible and use the rules to build up sentences to communicate with others. Otherwise, we may become “mute grammar experts” who can only stick to the books (reading and writing) not on speaking and listening.
One of the reasons why people use languages is to communicate each other. To complete the communication well, what the deliverer wants to say and what the receiver understands should be in harmony. To do so, people should learn more vocabulary for effective communication. Of course, when people do not know the exact words, they can also explain the concept in a roundabout way. However, this is more inefficient, and sometimes it evokes misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem is that people cannot communicate effectively by giving just several words that they want to talk about. They should arrange the words grammatically to deliver their idea exactly. Sometimes, because of the small errors, the meaning could be changed totally differently, and speakers and writers cannot express the delicate shades of meaning.
In my opinion, not only vocabulary but also grammar is important in language learning. Without the balanced learning of these two parts, language learners cannot be a proficient language user.
I don’t agree with the Natural Approach’s stance that vocabulary is at the heart of language. Without fluidity in grammar, it’s difficult to apply vocabulary. If phonology, syntax or even pragmatic use is not correct in an utterance, the vocabulary’s meaning is altered. It’s like the difference between, “I like beagles in the morning” (when meaning BAGLES. Phonological error), or “I am here five minutes” (meaning unclear due to grammar. I’ve been here for five minutes? I will be here for five more minutes?), or some cross-cultural pragmatic failure such as answering the phone, “Tell me” ("dígame" in Castilian Spanish).
ReplyDeleteI think we can manage to communicate a lot with little vocabulary making due with fundamental words and pronouns, given there’s fluency in all other aspects of language. From my personal L2 experience, I don’t believe a large vocabulary necessarily amounts to communicative L2 ability. It’s like having a lot of bricks (the vocab), but not the mortar or architectural skill to build a sound, beautiful and appropriate house with them. So what you’re left with is… a lot of scattered bricks all over the ground.
Stefani Goode
ReplyDeleteLike most of my classmates I think you need a combination of both in order to communicate. Vocabulary is necessary but without grammar we wouldn't know how to use our words. Gouin attempted to communicate in another language only memorizing a dictionary yet he was unable hold a basic conversation or understand what was being said around him.
I agree with my classmates in that Krashen and Terrell's Natural approach to language is lacking to say the least. Language is composed of more than just words. There is a system to language and without that system we can't properly communicate with each other. We need words, we need grammar to help put those words in an order and apply meaning, so putting language in a type of system would be adding vocabulary plus semantics plus syntax plus phonology as a simple start in communication.
I like Zahra’s image of language as a house, with grammar as its pillars and vocabulary its windows. Adding in H. Hecht’s likening of vocabulary to bricks, I get a complete picture of a “language building.” This structure is built up from the ground in words. The strong red bricks a supply of steady and useful nouns, the graceful edging and décor a store of adjectives. Externally, all a person sees is the vocabulary of a language, and through vocabulary windows the one inside the house (the speaker of the language) sees the world. But this house’s foundation is grammar. Without grammar, the windows are not held up, and the viewer cannot look upon or through them. At least for this imagery, grammar could be said to be “the heart of language.”
ReplyDeleteAlso, evidence of grammatical structure can be seen throughout all languages. Some languages can share some of the same grammatical features even if they do not have a word in common. Each language turns its vocabulary into meaning through its grammar. A new word can always be learned or created, as evidenced by dramatic increase in the size of the English dictionary over the centuries, but the subtleties of an L2 grammar can be much more difficult to pick up. And new vocabulary cannot be said to be free from grammar, because even newly created words function within lexical or functional categories. For these reasons, I would cautiously disagree with the Natural Approach. I certainly do not disregard the importance of vocabulary, simply question its supremacy.
--Elizabeth Vose
I don't wholeheartedly agree with this statement, but I do like the way it sounds. It's probably that I love the poetic sentiment of vocabulary being the heart of language. I have always placed high importance on second language vocabulary words being viewed as meaningful in and of themselves, not translations, not jumbles of letters put together that somehow 'mean' a word I know in English. That is simply not effective language learning, and although it is tempting for beginners to work in that way, I believe those who advance in their study of languages quickly abandon that method. The deep meaning connection that is achieved when one no longer looks at, for example, a red fruit with white flesh and says "that's an apple, what is apple in Spanish again??" but instead sees it and is able to think "manzana" is the key to reducing the time it takes to quickly and accurately access your second language in real time discourse with speakers of that language. I cannot say I completely support the idea of vocabulary being the heart of language, because it just begs the question, "What about grammar?" What about the complex set of rules and functions that we learn once and are then able to apply to a world of novel grammatical situations? Is it not amazing that we are able to conjugate one verb and then take that knowledge and apply it to a verb never seen before because you know a rule, not just a word? Grammar is just as enriching and just as necessary, albeit less poetic. So if vocabulary is the heart, grammar is the brain, and they need each other to be effective.
ReplyDelete- Hayley Mullane
While vocabulary is vital for learning a new language, it is only one aspect of language - not its heart. Krashen and Terrell might argue that without knowing the words to a language, one doesn't have any means to communicate in that language. Words are the first steps or building blocks of language, since even if one has improper grammar, she is still able to use that language even if no one understands her meaning. However, a person may know many grammar rules in a language and yet still not be able to communicate. This was the case for Francois Gouin who memorized an entire German grammar book and yet could not understand a single word of German. When I was learning Cantonese, I memorized as much vocabulary as possible so that even though my grammar was sometimes off, people had an idea of what I was saying because of the key vocabulary words I used. Then they could reorganize the words into the proper order and discern what I was saying.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree however, that vocabulary alone is the essence of meaning unless its implicit that the word "vocabulary" also means having correct pronunciation, spelling and even pragmatics. If one cannot pronounce words properly (or hear them properly for that matter), he will not be able to communicate. This was true for Gouin who not only memorized a grammar book but an ENTIRE DICTIONARY of 30,000 words, and yet still was not able to communicate because he didn't have experience to practice his pronunciation and hearing nor did he have instruction in how to use all the vocab words he'd memorized to communicate in a meaningful and culturally appropriate way. In my Cantonese learning, i found that vocabulary was only one aspect of meaning while a more basic one was tones. Cantonese has 7 tones so that I could know a vocab word, but if I wasn't able to speak or hear its tone, I wasn't able to communicate with it.
It's difficult to say what the HEART of a language is. It's true that grammar and vocabulary go hand-in-hand. If you don't have both, you don't have effective communication. However, if you have grammar and no vocabulary, you have essentially nothing. Like Jonathan said, there is some sort of communication that can take place with vocabulary. I would add, too, that the importance of grammar varies drastically depending on the language you are speaking. It's crucial in languages such as German and Latin. But in Khmer, the grammar is far less complex. There's no conjugating and declining. There are basically 3 tenses marked only by the addition of a single word, which is only used when there's nothing else in the sentence to indicate when an even took place. As an English speaker, I could communicate pretty effectively early on just by memorizing vocabulary and stringing words into sentences, without the use of function words. On the flip side, my Cambodian students who would attempt the same thing in English were incomprehensible. For example, they might translate directly from Khmer and say something such as "I like dog." I don't know if they mean they like eating dog or simply like their dog, a dog, all dogs, a specific dog, etc. Maybe it could be said that vocabulary is the heart of a language but that grammar is its brain? Grammar is what makes the vocabulary make sense.
ReplyDelete- Debby Adams