One of the very controversial parts of you is that you are in your book, and you mention
that several times in your videos, that you are quite against grammar teaching. So how
much grammar do you think that one person needs to know before he can speak English fluently?
Okay. So, that is a question that has more layers than you
perhaps think. So the extreme answer to that would be none.
Correct.
So to answer this question properly you've got to think a little bit about the history
of linguistics and language education. So the idea that grammar is like the center
of language came from a guy called Noam Chomsky in the 1950s. He had this idea
that syntax grammar was everything, and that language is encoded in the human DNA,
and that these universal grammar rules are just there in our head. That became a very,
very popular idea at the time and that heavily influenced language teaching. That's where the
idea that grammar is everything and then you just need to plug vocabulary into that comes from.
But as technology and research methods improved, we now know, like people argue this. I mean,
there is very much two sides of the fence. I'm at the University of Nottingham and we
are very much on the kind of anti syntax, anti grammar side of things. But native
speakers actually aren't processing language using grammar rules and individual words. What
we're actually doing is we're storing big chunks of English in long-term memory, and we're just
pulling them out. So in that sense, you don't really need grammar at all.
Better is to focus on phrases, expressions, chunks of English, and to speak using those.
That said, grammar rules can be very, very useful for higher level learners to understand
the real English that they see. They can also be useful for beginners to get started. The
problem comes in when you start to think okay, I need to speak using grammar rules and you're
thinking in your head okay, it's in the present perfect progressive and I need to combine that
with the infinitive of the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You can't speak like that. It'll
just overload your head. You're just going to get confused and not be able to speak properly.
So that has started to turn into a very long answer, so I'll leave it at that, but.
Yeah, but I think I can summarize what you just said because I was just teaching grammar.
Good idea.
I was teaching last night and I kept thinking about what you said because grammar is not
something native speakers do. So instead of memorizing passive voice, like verb to be,
plus past participles, I think what you guys do is to memorize a whole sentence.
Yeah.
Like wine is made from grapes. You don't think oh, wine. Oh, we need this and then made we need from.
Yeah.
We need made for something that has turned into something else, but we use made of where now the
material still looks the same. I don't think, I don't believe, native speakers do think that way.
Yeah.
So I started to think about grammar recently. I think maybe teaching
grammar should be focused on chunks instead of just points.
Yeah. Right. Exactly. And that example, wine is made from grapes,
what that essentially is it's the chunk is made from.
Yeah, made from.
And that's a single unit, is made from.
Right, made from.
And statistically, if the first word that begins that chunk is wine, wine is made from,
statistically the way that language, we believe it works, the chances of grapes coming on the end of
that is extremely high. So as soon as you say wine is made, the brain has already pulled out grapes.
Grapes.
And just plugs it in. So it's not grammar per se. It's not a syntactical system where
we're computing the sentence. It's actually large overlapping blocks,
like big Lego blocks, that we're just sticking together.
Yeah, and it's also become habitual.
Yeah. Well, that's exactly what I chunk is, it's a habit. It's a habitual routine
embedded in long-term memory, if you want to be really technical about it, but.
Okay. Wow. Enough about...
Grammar.
Oh, academic stuff. Now-