On Grammar

Is absolutely necessary, knowing grammar to study a foreign language?

This text aims  for enlarging, clarifying and going deeper, into some of the things that I say(point) in the video. The first of them, drawing attention to the fact that several times when one speaks about the necessity of learning grammar to learn a language, is not clear what one is  talking about when one refers to this concept. I said on my video, that is usual that the people (the teachers), refering particularly to syntaxis; that is, to the order of the components of the sentence, such as: nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives and other elements of the sentence. In general, to the prescriptive rules about the use of the elements of a language, and its functional dynamics. Nevertheless, the grammar is much more complex.

      Grammar is a branch of Linguistics and this one, at the same time of Semiotics. whose function is studiying the structure and function of the language, for which is divided into: syntaxis, morphology, semantics, fonetics, phonology and so on. Its study requires of even greater effort than which is needed to learn an alien language. Reason why, tackling the apprentisage of a tongue, starting by studying its grammar makes an strategic mistake. It's like trying to reach the zenith of the mountain, go first deep into the swamp, instead of looking for the dry places and clear; or like trying drink a warm soup giving tablespoons from the center, instead of doing  this from the rims, where for reasons that I don't know, the soup is lukewarm.

      Grammar is infered from the heuristic process (pure induction) of apprentisage of a specific language and not via deduction. As the canadian polyglot Steve Kaufman says, invoking a sufist principle: "One cannot learn, what one already know". Or Luka Lampariello used to say: "A language is something that one learns, not somthing that one studies". Speaking a language is an ability that one learns, not a school subject to study. Is for this reason that I speak about a strategic error, like begining by a grammatical aproach to a language.

But, this is something that cannot be posed in absolute terms. Eventually we are gonna need grammar knowledge; but in a practical way. Because honestly speaking, some natives have a mediocre performance of their language, on account they don't never worry about looking up a grammar book. We don't need studying grammar to learn a foreign language, similarly we didn't grammar to learn our own language. Nevertheless we are gonna improve both of them, if  we consult a grammar book some times. But  especially, if we used to write and read frecuently. Reading well written texts lead us to assimilate the most adequated and elegant patterns. Likewise, writing with assiduity is gonna oblige us to consult the prescriptive rules of the use the language.


      We know thanks to the experts and especially to polyglots, and scientists such as Dr. Stephen Krashen that the process of aquisition of a foreign language begins by messages understanding, which is called comprenhensible input. We go then to formulate the following question:

      Is it possible to understand  the messages that an emmisor conveys in a language, without the knowledge of that language?


      For those of us who can do that the answer is Yes. Nevertheless we never will understand anything if our ear cannot decode that message. But we cannot distinguish the words as units within the sentence. And its sense in the context of the phrase.

      Following the same logic. We the natives of a language are so habituated to listen her, that when a stranger speaks with grammar mistakes (syntaxis), and bad pronuntation we can understand him without problems. Let's take a look at the dawn of hummanity where the wrinting didn't exist, nobody had any idea about the sintatic rules. Nevertheless the men communicated each other with no difficulties. In accordance with some scientists (Spirking), the human languages were parasintactical; that is, these hadn't a defined syntaxis. When the man begins to study the language, goes abstacting the regular structure of the languages. Therefore, the grammar is the result  of an abstraction process, and not a concrete reality. For that reason, in real communication there are so many diffrences between the use and the rules.