Second Language Acquisition: by Grammar or by Speech?

Second Language Acquisition: by Grammar or by Speech?

I have spent almost the last 4 years of my life teaching Latin to middle-school students.  As I have sought to improve my Latin and teaching abilities, I have looked more broadly at the movements in second language acquisition and how they can help me improve as a teacher.

One of the big movements in second language acquisition is Comprehensible Input.  C.I. teaches grammar subconsciously.  The expectation is that the learners will understand how the grammar of the new language works through repeated examples of the correct grammar.  Often times, C.I. is experienced in a partial immersion of spoken language in the class room.  The goal is to produce students who can speak the language.

The school I teach at uses a grammar based approach to teaching Latin. The grammatical approach teaches the grammar concepts first.  Often times, this is done in the first language of the students and not in the target language.  The Grammatical Approach relies upon grammatical rules to produce precise renderings into and out of the target language.  The goal is to produce students who understand the target language.

There is yet an older method of total immersion.  I like to think of it as incomprehensible input.  In this manner, everything is conducted in Latin.  This is how Martin Luther learned Latin (complete with students wearing donkey masks for speaking German instead of Latin in class).  Both the teacher and the students were expected to speak only in Latin and the grammar rules were taught using the Latin language. The goal was to produce someone who was fluent in Latin.

As I have reflected upon these methods of second language acquisition, I also reflected upon first language acquisition.  The first several years of my life English was incomprehensible.  I entered into the world and knew none of it.  To be fair, I had no language skills at birth except for assorted levels of crying.  Moving into the early childhood years, I entered a stage of comprehensible input through children’s books and my own family communicating with me.  Yet, for some reason C.I. did not subconsciously produce a correct use of grammar let alone a correct understanding of grammar.  I needed to be taught the grammar of the language I had already been speaking for years. 

How I learned English ought to influence how I teach students to acquire a second language. C.I. was the way I first truly learned English.  However, C.I. in English only taught me to understand English at a grade school level.  Likely around the 3^rd grade level.  Even though I was immersed on a daily basis in the English language, my grammar was poor.  I needed to be taught grammar in order to become truly adept at the use of English.  And, for some strange reason, schools that promote C.I. as THE way to learn a second language still teach English Grammar as a part of English acquisition.

Now, the real question is what is the goal of second language acquisition? 

If we merely want people to converse and read at the level of elementary students, then C.I. will meet your needs on its own.

If we merely want students to be masters of grammar, then the grammatical method suffices.

If we want people to master the language, then we really ought to teach both in the same manner that was done historically: immersion, C.I., and grammatical instruction. 

The real question that must be answered is, what is the goal of learning a second language?  If the goal is to actually know and use the language, then all three of these teaching methods ought to be utilized.  It seems to be a silly expectation that a second language will be taught to mastery apart from these same methods that were used to teach a first language.

Therefore, I am supportive of C.I. and an immersive Latin experience, but, at the same time, I am supportive of teaching grammar.  I want to teach to mastery, and mastery requires immersion and grammar.