|
|
|
|
|
by brownbat
2074 days ago
|
|
There's something called the input hypothesis that's trending upwards in language learning. More input is basically a substitute for studying grammar, or even superior, because the brain is phenomenal at pattern matching. Bad grammar will sound "off" well before you understand the rule in your own language, same thing happens when learning new languages, given sufficient input. It takes a leap of faith but learning grammar almost exclusively through example sentences is actually really efficient. Krashen, Khatzumoto, Matt vs. Japan, and Antimoon are all worth reading if you want to go down this rabbit hole. How you absorb the grammar of a language is a separate question from when you should do conversations though. Some folks advocate conversation day one, but most pro-input folks do recommend waiting until you have a sense of how things work and can make fewer mistakes. EDIT: One of the best articles explaining this anti-rule view: http://www.antimoon.com/how/input-gramrules.htm |
|
With that said I still find GP's complaint pretty weird, since TFA strikes me as being in the "beginning stuff that even advocates of input learning would teach out of a book" category.
I mean, if I was teaching somebody Japanese then I'd probably cover how particles work on the first day. Surely only a madman would expect someone to absorb that organically.