Getting to Grammar: Comparing my method with Steve Kaufmann's method

Steve and I have been having a bit of an interesting back-and-forth on how to approach grammar. It started with my post entitled If you want accurate grammar quickly, Steve Kaufmann's method is not for you, and then moved over to the comments section of a tangentially related post on his blog.

The back-and-forth actually led me to think that we're a bit closer in our approaches than my earlier post suggested, so I thought I'd pull together all of the relevant comments into one place and then offer some further comparisons of our methods, making use of a few rough graphs. The fun begins, after the jump.

Read more...There's quite a chunk of text that Steve and I generated in the comments, so if you want to skip all that and get right to the (much briefer) comparison of our methods, click here. Otherwise, let's dive into the discussion.

First, you might want to take a look at the post that started it all.

Steve's reply came over on his blog:

I read your post and I am sorry but it makes no sense to me. I find that I cannot get the grammar rules into my head without first getting the exposure. … Input and vocabulary over grammar rules, anytime, at least in my experience.

Feeling like I hadn't quite explained myself well enough, I replied:

First I should probably be clearer about what it means to "get it in your head". I don't mean that you need to have it mastered, or that you need to have it memorized. I completely agree that that will most easily happen after lots of exposure. But anyone who picks up a grammar and reads that "estar" becomes "estoy" when "yo" is the subject already has it in their head to some degree, and that's the minimum you'd need to do to get it in your head. As I'm sure you're not saying that you can't get that in your head, I presume we're talking about different things.

The language in which I'm closest to the degree of accuracy that I seek is Japanese. … I would presume that your argument here would be that the input I'm getting is leading to my improved grammar, and I won't disagree that that's contributing, but whenever I come across something that doesn't fit into my understanding of how Japanese grammar works (extremely polite forms that I'm not accustomed to using come to mind), I dig until I understand how the rule works. That makes it much easier to understand it a second time. If I didn't get it the first time and didn't look it up, the second exposure would just be another puzzle.

And I'm definitely not saying that grammar is the only thing you focus on. When I've employed my approach, it typically takes me two or three weeks before I'm hardly spending any time on grammar at all. So you say "input and vocabulary over grammar rules", and I say "spend a few weeks getting the grammar into your head, then exposure and vocabulary over grammar rules".

… I think another point where you and I differ is that I think you should systematically try to fix your grammar, whereas my understanding of your approach is to just get it as it comes to you via input, filling in the gaps when you feel like it. (Correct me if that's wrong.)

Steve replied:

I constantly refer to grammar books, a little at the beginning and thereafter quite often reading the same rule or looking at the same table. I do not try to nail anything down. Eventually it all sticks. I have always said so. It is just that my point of emphasis is input.

I am actually quite accurate in my use of language, and constantly try to get more accurate. Expanding vocabulary is one of the best ways of achieving greater accuracy.

To which I replied:

I'm beginning to wonder if our positions on grammar are closer than I originally thought. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. When you start a language, how and to what extent do you review the grammar?
2. When you encounter grammar you don't understand, how and to what extent do you systematically try to figure it out? Every time? Sometimes?
3. What do you do when whatever you do in 2 is taking a very long time to stick in your head? (German cases are an instance of this for me; I needed (and, thanks to not using German frequently, now again need) to take steps beyond just getting exposed to them and reviewing my grammars to get them down.)

And, finally, Steve replied to my questions:

1) I have never started a language with LingQ. I have usually bought a little starter book Teach Yourself, or Colloquial and followed it, and then moved on to other content. I tend to skim the explanations and devour the little dialogues. I then refer back to the book from time to time. I do not try to understand or remember the explanations. In future, if the language is Dutch, or Czech or a language related to one I already know, I think I will just dive in, and only refer to grammar explanations later. If it is Turkish, I may still start with the starter book and CD and do LingQ in parallel.

2) Rarely look things up. It is usually when I am writing or speaking that I will look up a declension table of something. On the other hand, I will from time to time review a short grammar book, to see if things make more sense. I do not retain much, but I think it helps to make me more attentive.

3) When I was studying German on my own, I spent a fair amount of time trying to get the declension tables into my head. I was unsuccessful and now rely on having heard it so often and hope for the best. The same with Russian. I do save phrases in LingQ which feature the cases that cause trouble. I have tagged words and phrases for their case endings and reviewed them as a batch. I try to be attentive to these. I occasionally review the tables but find that the benefits are very short term. Mostly I try to notice them while listening and reading and hope for the best when I speak.

After Steve's last post, I decided to polish off a post explaining in some more detail my own grammar method, and there you'll find more details on the system I'm comparing to Steve's.

First, here's how time is spent on grammar under my method, as explained here:

And this is my understanding of how it's spent under Steve's method:

So Steve spends a little time at the beginning with some introductory materials. He then refers back to grammar as necessary, with exposure to the language (in particular, reading and listening) being his main source of exposure to grammar rules. He also engages in a similar refinement effort. However, because that is his main source of solidifying the rules outside of exposure, the amount of grammar time spent on that declines more slowly that it does under my method. Under both methods, it will eventually go down to next to nothing, but it will take longer under Steve's method to get to that point.

Accordingly, here's a rough comparison of the grammar understanding generated by the two methods (assuming that the average native speaker's knowledge of grammar is 100%):

Under both methods, an initial review of materials will quickly establish some basic understanding, but from there the level of understanding diverges.

Under my method, you get a large initial jump by outlining your grammar. This will cause a lot of it to stick. Not all of it, of course, but because you are actively processing the information, it is a much stronger form of exposure than the passive grammar reviews that Steve primarily relies on.

From there, both methods rely on a refinement process. Steve frequently consults grammars while I use my own refinement process only as necessary. Both processes result in a gradual approaching of a native speaker's grammar level, but because of the boost the outlining gave under my method, my method will get you there more quickly. Steve's method will of course get you there too, but it will just take more time.

In the post that started this whole discussion, I wrote that Steve's method won't lead you to the same level of accuracy in your grammar. However, given enough time and enough checking with grammar books, as Steve does, I think Steve's method can take you to at least an equal level of accuracy. The issue, again, is that I think this will take more time.

Thus, I think Steve's method will work if you've got both the time and the commitment to continuously get regular exposure to a language over a very long period of time. Many language learners can't or don't do that, so I would be wary about recommending Steve's approach to grammar. My approach on the other hand, will lead to a greater understanding more quickly, and can be put to good use when time is limited. After this comparison, I’m left with one question that I’d love to have answered: how much more time would Steve’s method take to reach accuracy parity with my method? Although I think the time difference is significant, I don’t have a good basis on which to make any guesstimates.

As a final note, and one that I’ve mentioned before when comparing my approach to Steve’s, I think our varying approaches very much reflect our varying goals in language learning. Steve main focus is to enjoy content in the language, while my aim is more centered on being able to use my languages at work, which means I need to try to get more accurate more quickly for output purposes than a nearly all-input method would allow.

Why output trumps input in language learning

OK, so I don't really think that output trumps input, but I thought I'd lead off with a contrarian title vis-à-vis Steve Kaufmann's post entitled Why input trumps output in language learning. Some amount of input necessarily needs to come before you can produce any output, but saying one trumps the other is like saying reading blogs trumps writing blogs; sure, you can learn a lot by reading blogs, but you'll only be getting your message out there once you start writing one. (And, incidentally, in either case, you'll be getting exposure to a language.)

The reason I went with a contrarian title was because, when I read Steve's post, I thought that most of his arguments for input learning could easily be changed to serve as arguments for getting into output sooner rather than later. Below I've edited Steve's post to show how easily those arguments can be turned in the other direction. I've tried to edit as little as possible. Some of the changes work better than others, and some even work surprisingly well, but they all go to my main point here, which is that early output is a good thing.

Read more... I've used red to mark text I deleted from Steve's post, while blue marks the text I added:

Some arguments in favor of output input. I am sure there are many more.

• We need to start speaking understand before we can speak well.
• I would rather communicate with people early understand well and stumble when I speak than communicate with people later and stumble less the reverse.
• If we can never pratice producing intelligible phrases and do not understand the answers, our conversations will not last long.
• Passive vocabulary is powerful, necessary, and always much larger than our active vocabulary of the words we like to use, so we need to start working on active vocabulary early and frequently.
• The more we can write and speak understand, and the more words we can use actively have, even passively, the more interesting our interaction with the language and the more words we can acquire.
• If we can actively use understand most of the words in a text or conversation, it is easier to pick up the words and phrases we do not yet know than if we merely understood everything passively.
• The ability to use active acquisition of passive vocabulary through output input, is like putting the pieces of the jig-saw together. Gradually the picture of what we're trying to express becomes clearer.
• Output Input is easy to arrange. We can speak listen and write read anywhere and anytime.

See here for some ways that the internet makes output possible from anywhere, which of course includes Steve's own LingQ.

• Output Input is interesting, if we choose content that is meaningful to us.
• If we develop the habit of producing output input learning, we become independent.
• Being able to produce output Input learning makes it easy to practice review our languages, and maintain them.
• Through producing output input learning, especially on topics we like writing and speaking about with authentic content, we learn not only the language, but many more things.
• At any time in our output producing input learning activities, we can decide to listen speak or read write, to practice what we can produce have learned.
• Of course we need to speak read a lot in order to speak well, but. Our progress in speaking will be smoother if we invest time in output input, and continue doing so.
• Our interaction with any language, including our own, is mostly as listeners and readers, so we need to make extra efforts to practice producing output.
• If we are good speakers listeners and writers readers, our output input skills will have a sound base.

One of my goals in any language learning project is to have little difficulty in conveying complex ideas to native speakers read a full length book in that language. Getting there is a powerful moment of achievement, an Everest.

I could go on....

Is it possible to become fluent in just three months? Yes. Will Benny pull it off in Germany? Probably not.

One of the points of contention in the ongoing back-and-forth between Steve Kaufmann and Benny the Irish Polyglot is whether Benny can truly pull off fluency in three months. Specifically, Benny is in Berlin studying German right now and will deem himself fluent if he can pass a really hard German test and if he can fool native speakers for 30 seconds that he is a Berliner.

Jelly donuts aside, Kennedy didn't fool anyone.

Here's what Steve thinks of Benny's plan:

Sounding like a native and amassing enough vocab to pass a difficult exam is impossible IMHO. Senseless hype.

I can confidently state that this is not impossible; I myself did with Portuguese exactly what Benny is trying to do with German. (And that's not even getting into wunderkinds like Daniel Tammet.) That said, I'm doubtful that Benny can pull this off in Berlin because there are some very important differences between his situation in Germany and mine in Brazil that will make it a harder task for him to accomplish than it was for me.

Read more... The tourist visa I got to go to Brazil was for exactly 90 days, and I stayed for the entire 90 days. I had never formally studied any Portuguese before arriving in Brazil, and in fact the only thing close to studying I had done at that point was reading some parts of a Portuguese grammar book more than a year before arriving in Brazil. And that book was for the Portuguese of Portugal, so it had a number of things that were useless for me in Brazil.

On the other hand, my Spanish was pretty good. I had studied Spanish throughout middle school and high school, and had previously spent a month in Mexico studying it more. Spanish is of course not Portuguese, but they are so close that the benefit of knowing one when studying the other shouldn't be downplayed; knowing Spanish was without a doubt a massive help in learning Portuguese.

On top of that, I had a great learning environment. I was living with a large Brazilian host family and there was almost always someone around to talk with. I also had a Brazilian girlfriend with whom I was constantly speaking. I didn't need to do anything but study Portuguese, so except for the occasional emails in other languages to my friends abroad (which was further limited by the hassle of a dial-up connection I had to use), it was all Portuguese all the time for me.

In terms of what I was doing to learn Portuguese, the first two weeks or so I focused on getting an understanding of the grammar. Then I moved onto exposure: music, comics (Spawn, in particular), books (a history of the Roman Empire was one I spent a lot of time on, but there were a number of others as well), television (which was always on when I was doing anything else), etc.

Naturally, I spent a lot of time getting the vocab down. I still have my digital Portuguese flashcards as they were when I left Brazil. The flashcards contained some 4,000 vocabulary words and phrases. Add to those a few thousand words that never made it to flashcards (because they were so much like English or Spanish that there was no need to do anything to memorize them, or that I just managed to pick up elsewhere) or that got deleted from the set once I knew them, and I'd estimate that I had at least 6,000 to 7,000 words in my head to some degree when I left Brazil.

Using Benny' standard for fluency—fooling native speakers for at least 30 seconds that you are a native speaker yourself and passing a really hard test—I seemed to have been fluent in Portuguese after my three months there.

When I was leaving Brazil, I managed to fool the lady at the airport check-in that I was Brazilian. I can't recall if it was precisely 30 seconds, but I'd venture that it was. I remember that I had said a few things to her, including something about having already weighed my bags and that they shouldn't be overweight, before giving her my passport. Once I gave it to her, she said, "You're not Brazilian?" When I told her I was there studying Portuguese, she was shocked to find out I had only been there for three months. I'm guessing somewhere in the course of our conversation I eventually said something non-Brazilian sounding, but, based on her reaction to my passport, I do think I had her fooled at the beginning.

Regarding the test, I came back from Brazil and took my university's Portuguese placement exam. I got placed out of all the language-learning classes and straight into the literature classes (i.e., the ones where you might be sitting next to a native Brazilian). I think that my experience shows that three months can prepare you quite well for difficult tests.

However, I'm doubtful that Benny will be able to pull it off. If you compare my situation in Brazil to Benny's situation in Germany, there are a number of things that gave me a big advantage. First, my Spanish abilities made Portuguese so (so, so, so) much easier. Benny doesn't have anything comparable with respect to German. Second, the only thing I was doing was learning or using Portuguese, whereas Benny is working (presumably not in German) and blogging in English, and that is likely eating up a big chunk of his time. Third, my guess is that the test that Benny wants to take is a heckuva lot harder than the test I took, so I'm not so sure that he'll be able to pass it as easily as I was able to pass the one I took.

Indeed, the only advantage that Benny has over me is that he's studied some German previously, but, based on what Benny himself as said, that recollection is faint at best, although it will nevertheless provide some familiarity.

So while I'd love to see Benny do exactly what he's going for, if I were a gambling man, I'd definitely be betting against him pulling it off.

Getting to Grammar: If you want accurate grammar quickly, Steve Kaufmann's method is not for you

This is the best our graphics department could do.

The great language-learning blogosphere battle of the day has been Steve "The Inputter" Kaufmann v. Benny "The Haxor". The latest salvo in this battle comes from Steve:

In my view, there are three divergent approaches to language learning, divergent in terms of their emphasis or principal focus. This is true whether we learn in the classroom, online or on the street. One approach focuses on input, another on output, and a third on what I would call shortcuts and some people call language-hacking techniques. These techniques include grammar study, studying vocab lists and phrase books, heavy use of flash cards, "deconstructing the language", memory techniques, and so forth.

I don't think Steve's division has it right at all. As I noted in my last post, output is input. In other words, it's all just exposure. From there, the only thing you need to think about is what kind of exposure you need to get in order to burn the language into your brain as efficiently as possible.

And efficiency leads me to one of my main points of disagreement with Steve: grammar.

Read more... In a nutshell, here's my understanding of Steve's approach to grammar:

1. Spend lots of time getting input.
2. If you figure out the grammar rules, great. If not, don't worry about it.
3. When you feel like it, try to fill in those gaps in your knowledge by looking up the rules.

Steve's German is good enough to listen to and read fairly tough materials, and yet he still get criticized for screwing up the cases. That tells me that his method is not working as far as his ability to produce correct grammar. (Of course, I'm assuming those criticisms are correct, as I've never heard or read his German myself. If that's not right, I'm sure I'll be hearing about it in the comments soon enough.)

This is a close adult approximation of the inductive "learn like a child" method. Children get years of exposure to a language and still make lots of grammar mistakes, until years of schooling finally iron out the wrinkles. Without extra efforts beyond mere exposure, they end up being able to understand just about everything, even while they may still be speaking incorrectly. Steve's results seem to match that pattern.

And, after all, is it really surprising that a method that focuses on input results in you having a good understanding of input without being able to produce accurate output?

I think a different approach can get you much better results. Here's the rough outline of how I approach grammar:

1. Get the rule in your head.
2. Get exposure to the rule in use. Because the rule's in your head, you're seeing the rule in action rather than trying to puzzle out what the rule is.
3. If you forget the rule, or if you're exposed to something that doesn't fit into your understanding of the rule, go over the rule again.

During the bulk of my German studies, I actually followed a method that was much closer to Steve's, and it resulted in German being one of the weaker languages that I can actually communicate in with some degree of proficiency. (So, yes, I screw up the cases, and probably much worse than Steve.) I'd love to find the time to attack it again, using the approach that I laid out above.

As a final note, I'd also say that I think Steve's and my divergent approaches to grammar may stem in part from our divergent goals in language learning. Steve's goal seems to be enjoying literature and whatever else he feels like enjoying in the language. For me, that's a means to an end while my actual goal is being able to prepare business documents, contracts, etc. I need to obtain a higher degree of accuracy in a shorter amount of time that Steve's method will allow, while Steve can quickly reach his own goal of jumping into content he enjoys without worrying about whether he's producing correct grammar.

Help me with Steve Kaufmann's Wikipedia page!!

After hearing about Steve's run-in with a little Napolean over on Wikipedia, I thought I'd insert myself into all this fun, so I started a Wikipedia page on Steve himself. I've gone on there a few times before to check out Steve's bio, only to find myself surprised that no one had put anything up yet.

The same is actually true of LingQ as well. I do think that if Livemocha and Lang-8 get Wikipedia pages, then there's no reason why LingQ shouldn't have one. However, let's let that one cool off for a little bit and focus on Steve's entry for now.

Here's how I started it:

Steve Kaufmann is a Canadian polyglot linguist, author, award-winning blogger and the founder of the language-learning website LingQ. He currently speaks twelve languages to varying degrees of fluency: Cantonese, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Swedish.

I modeled the text after Michel Thomas' Wikipedia entry. I made lots of citations, but as the article's not so long, I marked it as a stub in the hope that you guys would step in and expand it.

To keep this from getting deleted, remember to cite! cite! cite! Steve's book is up on the web completely for free, and it's full of good, citable information (Wikipedia loves citations to books). And feel free to dig up any information that might be floating around the internets, especially on official sounding stuff (wasn't there an NPR interview a while back?).

Also, Steve, you're not allowed to edit your own entry, so please don't! But if you've got links to media coverage, that'd be helpful. And, of course, if "anonymous" comes along and edits the entry, hey, who's the wiser?