Conversation VS Grammar? Which language lessons are the most useful?
3Like
I get this question asked a lot… to me, this is like being asked: what is more useful to have, bones or muscles? A heart, or a brain?
This approach triggers my fallacy alerts. If you don’t recognise the concept, or it sounds a bit like a dirty word to you, allow me to clarify:
Fallacies are quick, simplified conclusions our brains have learnt to reach, in order to survive.
For example “Lion: dangerous”.
They make sense and are necessary in the right context, however, out of a survival frame, they are not the argumentative allies they seem to be.
We could outline cognitive fallacies as intrinsic and primitive mindsets we have, like black-and-white thinking, or emotional reasoning, while logical fallacies are related to arguments within debate, like ad hominem or straw man.
I think the argument of Conversation vs. grammar language lessons can’t be simplified nor answered by picking just one.
Find language lessons near you
The G word
I truly believe the big issue with grammar is not grammar per se.
Initially many students explain in our initial lessons how much they hate grammar… which is fair. It is difficult to teach creatively at times. But I have also observed the shine in their eyes when they hit that “eureka” moment, and their interest spark when they learn why it may be relevant.
Grammar is the deeper structure, and the common ground of language. If it was a body, I think it’d be the bones, and if it was a house, it would be the foundation and load-bearing walls. It is not what makes it a home, or a person, but the stronger, the more it supports other parts of your body, or your house, the more options you have, and the least sacrifices you have to make in order to achieve goals.
My belief is that grammar teaching methods that are heavy on teacher talk and repetition, accompanied by mechanical demands and grading for people who have absolutely no interest in (or capacity for) it at a given time, have created a complicated - and sometimes quite traumatic - relationship with the subject. An adverse pavlovian response overtime. I think the paradigms of teaching are shifting at the moment and hopefully this experience will change, too.
Context, context, context…
Language is a complex thing, and it doesn’t do it justice to reduce it to two exclusive skills.
Back to my counter question, I have picked bones and muscles due to my own association of grammar as the structure (bones) and conversation as the executive system (muscles). Not to forget the other many elements that conform a body: tendons, organs, fluids, etc.
It is important to take context into account, to find the path that answers the question “What is best to learn: Conversation or grammar?” in each individual case.
What do you need/ want to learn the language for?
Are you learning just for fun? If it is for a holiday or a short period of time, and you are going to want to socialise, then leaning towards conversation will probably make more sense.
If you need it for school or an exam, you will need both, but grammar is generally favoured in academia.
What are your strengths?
As it’s natural, we make use of our inherent assets. Whether it is charisma, memory or a gift for mimicry, we become rather proficient at that thing we are good at, and potentially neglect other aspects.
If you asked me which one to go for, I would say “pick the one you are worst at!”
We might get people who are extremely easily distracted (think ADHD) or struggle to retain structures in order (think dyslexia), in these cases, we might find too big a struggle to try to give more room to grammar, and will benefit from a more organic approach.
How much time do you have to achieve your goals?
If you think about how we acquire our first language, there are not a lot of grammar drills involved for a number of years… but it requires significant amounts of time and repetition.
Some people are faster than others, but it generally takes years to master each language's level: the basics, enough for independence and proficiency.
Some people choose the oral path (see “Comprehensible input”), following similar steps as that of their native language (like pointing and naming), which works for them. It is likely to sink so deeply in your mind that you will intuitively know a lot without realising.
However, learning through conversation only may not be an ideal option if you have tight deadlines, if your learning style doesn’t favour auditive input, or if you have accessibility problems with the method. I also believe it may have some limitations when we want to reach more complicated topics of conversation, if that is within your goals.
You could also only want to know about a language for the fun of it, like the case of linguistics, but not so much interest in speaking it. If this was your case, including conversation or a conversation-heavy learning method will not work for you.
What resources do you have to learn?
Do you have an internet connection? Can you afford to attend a course or a private tutor? Do you have access to language speakers? Are they native, proficient, also learning?
Many of us don’t have to consider certain levels of accessibility, but some of these can become quite relevant, and shape the options we have to choose from, until circumstances change.
In this case, I’d say “whatever is available can be made to work”.
Balance is key
Within the endless cases out there, I have observed some opposite tendencies taking place:
Avid students who collect lexicon and know grammar rules well, who then struggle and get stuck in discomfort when it is time to put it all that into a conversation.
As an example, when I first came to London back in 2005, I remember my overall grades being lower than my twenty other colleagues’. They could explain to me the grammar rules of this and that, but somehow I ended up doing lots of translating for them and being treated as a spokesperson.
Then you have the doers, who somehow managed to learn on-the-go and speak without any restraints associated within their language level.
For example, I have met many people who came to London for work knowing absolutely no English, and have learnt through oral input. The downside are the intrinsic limitations of this method, and they often struggle to have conversations of a certain depth, like arguments or disagreement resolution, in which I have observed struggle to form complicated structures that match the complexity of an idea.
For me, the conclusion to this complex question is: balance.
Let me clarify that when I say balance I don’t mean “doing everything in the same amount”.
What I mean is that all skills are important at some point, and that they build on and support each other. Taking into consideration context, as in goals, needs, inherent ability, and resources available, we can develop a balanced skill set that can take care of us, and itself.