Is grammar really that important?
Is grammar really that important? Something to think about.
40 Answers
My Grammar was the most important thing in the first four years of my life ,
I was taught how to light a coal fire from scratch, to judge the heat in the oven
so that a meal was ready when the men came in from the fields, how to smile
and laugh at the neighbours and to carry a string bag full of groceries without
it bashing my knees to smithereens, how to hide when the nuns came around
for money, how to sing songs and ditties that you would never see written down.
Those lessons and grounding that were given to me by that clever beautiful
darling of a woman have set me up to breeze through life ,at least feeling
that I am capable of doing anything I want to do, even if I cannot . So yes I
think my grammar was not only important, but extremely valuable.
I agree and disagree with many of the comments here. 
Is it necessary to learn grammar to learn the language? Absolutely NOT!
Is it good for you to learn grammar? Absolutely YES!
See what I mean.
I don't know much of Spanish grammar, my native language, much less English grammar.
Should I have studied Spanish and English grammar later, yes, and most likely I would have been able to communicate better. 
We may be able to make ourselves fairl well understood without using grammar correctly
It depends on what you call grammar. As I said before, grammar is a collection of rules that native speakers are not aware of. It took me several months of study before I understood in detail how to use "se" in Spanish from a grammatical point of view, and yet, I could use "se" perfectly before, like any other native. I found learning the grammar of "se" very difficult, even though I could use "se" perfectly. For this reason, I prefer to differentiate between knowing the grammar (i.e. thousands of technical rules) and speaking grammatically (i.e. following the grammatical conventions that we learnt without opening a single grammar book).
The subjunctive also took me many months of study before I could get an overall picture (i.e. several hundred rules, and I am not exaggerating), just to find out that most rules could actually be explained in a much simpler way, using one single principle and contemplating different aspects of its use, along with its interaction with some peculiar words. Do you know how hard is it for me (or any other native) to memorize all those hundreds of rules for the subjunctive? Weeks of hard work, which most natives would not be able to cope with. My father is completely unaware of these rules, and yet, his Spanish is impeccable, both in reading and writing.
So again, people don't know grammar. Only people who study grammar knows a bit. Natives don't know grammar -they are able to totally unconsciously produce grammatically correct sentences, which is quite different. Grammatical rules are often as useless or confusing for someone who is learning a language as to a native of that language. Have you never seen a native of Spanish trying to explain the difference between ser and estar? They don't make mistakes, but their attempts at explaining it are a complete failure, because it doesn't matter how hard they try, there can't find a textbook-like grammar rule in their head. Our minds don't work like grammar books.
Ron Austin wrote:
I'd say it all depends on what you are looking for. If you don't mind being looked upon as a clod, then grammer don't matter any much. If you are okay with speaking spanish like a 1st grader then it don't worry about it none.
I'm hoping your post is a big joke. I have yet to meet an American that's learned Spanish as a second language that can speak as well as a 10 year old native Spanish speaker. I have several friends, two that are Spanish teachers, all that have completed college level classes in Spanish, and not one of them can carry on a conversation in Spanish. All of them can write books about grammar rules, and none of them can understand the kids. I'll take the 1st graders abilities over the grammar fanatic any day of the week.
Vikingo wrote:
Exactly. When I took Spanish classes, it was really painful to listen to those students who didn't care about grammar.
I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if you were a Spanish student you didn't have the ability to discern proper Spanish grammar to the point where it was "painful" to hear those "other" students.
There is not a child on this planet that has learned grammar, then learned how to speak. This very day, I was talking with a nine year old child who speaks equally well in Spanish or English, one of the many children at my Hispanic church with like abilities. I just hope that this clod can one day speak as well as this child does.
Ironically, in the last video the guy was arguing smugly about his grandchild not being provided with grammar books or lessons when he'll be learning to speak, and then he inadvertently gave an example of him getting a rudimentary grammar lesson from his mother.
What I found even more amusing was the fact that the speaker placed such an emphasis on the fact that the hypothetical-child-in-the-future would take such a lesson to be that one "light bulb moment" that would forever alter that child's speech. As though, the fact of that child's mother telling him, "No. It's 'I want food' not 'momma food me'" might actually be an accurate representation of the exact 'moment' when that child learned the distinction.
I imagine that if this were the inference made then I think it would overlook the countless hours in which the child sat constantly observing the language as it was spoken. It also probably overlooks the fact that the very next time that child was hungry, he most likely uttered another sentence more consistent with the first utterance than with the model proposed by the parent.
While it probably does a parents ego a lot of good (my own included) to try to convince ourselves that by little lessons like these, we are in fact teaching a child to speak properly, my own opinion is that these little lessons in fact do little in the way of solidifying a child's understanding of the language. I think that for the most part, languages are learned in the background, and are processed by our subconscious while we are not even aware of it. Such processing only occurs after countless hours of observation in which the subject being observed becomes progressively more intelligible to the observer. Most importantly, I think that it cannot be overemphasized the fact that those little "light bulb moments" usually occur, not because someone has explained to us repeatedly some abstract and somewhat contrived rule, but rather because we have had enough experience with a particular subject so that something just clicks, and we "discover the rule all by ourselves."
¿Mucha gramática o poca gramática?¿Cuanta es suficiente? La respuesta depende del motivo o de los objetivos que persigamos a la hora de enfrentarnos con un idioma.
¿Buscamos solo comunicarnos con los nativos?
¿Queremos leer a los grandes escritores sin necesidad de un diccionario?
¿Que busco?¿Saber el pretérito pluscuamperfecto del verbo “ponderar” que lo oirás una vez cada 17 años, o entender el lenguaje de un adolescente que se expresa con la ley del mínimo esfuerzo?
Creo que podríamos comparar el aprendizaje de un idioma con el de, por ejemplo,nadar.
¿Es imprescindible introducir la mano derecha en el agua con una perfección técnica similar a la de un nadador olímpico?
¿Necesitas usar los tiempos verbales con la precisión de un académico de la lengua?
¿No hará el excesivo estudio de la gramática tirar la toalla a más de uno y abandonar el estudio del idioma?
¿Es mejor un enfoque más divertido e informal, chapotear en el agua ,introducir la mano con un poco menos de técnica y disfrutar un poco ,pese a que no seamos capaces de introducirnos en el mar de una forma tan elegante?
¿Hipopótamos o sirenas?
Cada uno debe buscar su propia respuesta .
Este asunto del tiempo que hemos de dedicar a la gramática ,me recuerda a los martinis que bebía James Bond que uno era suficiente,dos demasiados y tres pocos.
New recommended response when someone starts a thread by saying "I don't understand the difference between 'ser' and 'estar' (or between the imperfect and the preterit, or between 'por' and 'para' or when to use the subjunctive)". Instead of suggesting that the person read whichever of Lazarus' lovely reference articles is relevant, explain that it isn't necessary (or even particularly useful) to understand the difference, it's sufficient to make the correct choice (more or less) automatically. To that end, if you become completely familiar with, say, a thousand sentences (real sentences, not just "Aquí está el libro." plus 999 sentences that have a different noun at the end), you will develop a feel for the usages/distinction and, if fluency is your goal, that's what matters. Note: it's not necessary to memorize the sentences (although, doing so is certainly not a bad thing). It's enough that you understand exactly what each sentence means.
Once you can use them correctly and, if you're still interested, you can look for an explanation of why one form is chosen over the other in each circumstance (this is a much more difficult question and knowing the answer is not necessary [perhaps, not even helpful] for fluency). Once you've internalized the pattern sentences you can join the ranks of native speakers (at least in this case) in saying "Because that's the way we say it."
P.S. That said, I sympathize with with Gopher88. Over the years, I've participated in many language classes and, without fail, there is at least one student (sometimes several) who feel as he does. I have seen adults almost reduced to tears by their frustration about not understanding why something is said one way and not another. They intensely want it to make some kind of "sense". Children, on the other hand, rarely (in my experience, ask "Why?" about syntax.). They ask for explanations about almost everything else. "Why is the sky blue?", "Where do babies come from?", etc. However, they seem to accept corrections of syntax without question (perhaps because these are so much more frequent).
A previous post suggested that some/most parents do not correct their children's speech (teach them grammar). In my opinion this is total nonsense. A parent does not need to say, "No, you should say 'x' instead of 'y'". in order to provide correction. It is sufficient to indicate that one doesn't understand what the child has said. One needn't say (an explicit correction) "No. It's 'I want food' not 'momma food me'". To provide correction, It's sufficient that the parent indicate a failure to understand the child's utterance. Most people (and children, especially) are sensitive to the "feedback" provided by those to whom they speak (for children, their parents). Even in the absence of an explicit correction, they recognize the look of incomprehension (that suggests that they have said something incorrectly).
By the time I finished reading all these answers, I have nothing to add other than my opinion about the importance of grammar. My vote if you will. Obviously grammar is important to some. Not important to others.
I don't feel learning anything is unimportant if it matters to the learner. A long time ago, I was a truck driver. To be one, I went to a school. Then I heard an ongoing debate amongst other drivers that basically went like this. "These new drivers are so stupid, it is dangerous out here because they go to school and come out thinking they are truck drivers. I learned the old fashioned way, by driving. "
They had a point about how going to school does not qualify one as being accomplished at what they went to school for. At the same time, their disdain for the education seemed odd to me. Even the ones that went to school learned to be truck drivers by driving.
Same thing when I went to school for electronics. When I graduated, I was still not in any way proficient at the job. While the education on the basics of how things work was of great benefit, it was only by doing that I was able to actually perform anything of value.
The only interest I have in the rules of grammar is to be able to use this forum to learn a language.
I like this, Lazarus. So much has already been said, however I think no one has mentioned a couple of points that struck me, well one has been mentioned but I'd like to offer another comment on it.
1 - This guy speaks very well, he's clear and in these brief examples his grammar is 'by the book'. It doesn't surprise me that anyone who grows up around him will have a head start in the communication department!
2) - In the second link, as has already been mentioned, he describes the initial stages of how his adorable grandchild will begin to communicate using spoken language. I'd suggest that, if his mother attempts to correct him as mentioned by saying "Nooo, I want food" instead of "mama, food, me", it could really mess with the child's learning processes. Why do I think this? Ok. I'll share my thoughts on this...
Let's imagine it's not a baby who is being 'corrected' but an adult learning a second language. Me, for example. I'm at the stage where, due to having attempted a large amount of listening immersion and reading, I can understand an awful lot. However, living in England I rarely get speaking practice, so I know I'm going to make plenty of mistakes, trying to use a mish-mash of parroted phrases and what I've learned from grammar lessons.
Were I to say, for example "Yo quiero comida", and the person I was trying to acquire this food from responded with "No, (yo) tengo hambre", what would I think? Ok, even as an adult who understands about how people like to help by correcting in this manner, I would still have some doubt as to whether that person was telling me that they too were hungry - or whether they were telling me the way I'd expressed it was incorrect. Because of my listening abilities, I would understand what she (for arguments sake I'll use 'she') said as "No, I'm hungry".
Can we assume that the little child, like me, has much more understanding of what's being said to him than he can currently put into words. What does he think? Does it make sense to the young brain that when somebody says, "No" then goes on to repeat what you just said but using different words, that they are trying to teach... or does that little brain just think, "ah, she's hungry too" and carry on using his own method of communicating until enough pieces of the jigsaw have fallen into place in his brain?
Does 'being taught' as a concept even make sense, or is the truth that we are programmed very well to learn, but that being taught is something that can only be understood much later?
I tend to believe that, actually, young humans (and other animals) are superbly programmed to learn - from example, from doing, from persevering, from asking, from watching and more - but that 'being taught' as imposed by others for one's own good is rather unnatural.
All of us here are learning pretty well, I think. Why? Not because we have someone around us teaching all the time, but because we know instinctively how to learn, how to ask (including asking to be taught!) , how to discipline ourselves and so much more.
Sorry for the wall of text. It is Sunday though!!
Well this made very interesting reading Especially as my views on the matter have been evolving the further along I go in the learning process.
As many of you will know, and if my SD games are anything to go by, I am intrigued by grammar, perhaps to the point of it having become somewhat of an addiction for me.
Having said that I am in total agreement with the comments that knowing the grammar of the language is not essential when it comes to speaking it perfectly and it's certainly not the way that native speakers generally learn - although I'm not sure that exactly the same rules and processes of native speech can be applied to those learning a second language.
Personally, I'm not completely sure what drives me to know the grammar of a language it's a bit of an enigma really because I didn't ever have the compulsion to totally understand the grammatical nitty gritty of English, although I always had a fascination with the language itself. But when it comes to learning a 'new' language I have to say that I do like to learn both how to speak the language and the mechanics of it's grammar simultaneously.
Of course not all people are like this so perhaps it's just a matter of preference. My husband for example is more than happy to be told how to say something in Spanish and he will begin to use it and feel quite satisfied with that. I on the other hand want to know not only how to say something in Spanish but why.
I know that I could read all the Spanish grammar books in the world and have a head full of the mechanics of the language but be unable to hold a basic conversation in Spanish so you would think that I could just forget about learning the grammar and concentrate on conversing in the language itself as that must be the ultimate goal, but no that just doesn't seem to work for me!
As someone who loves learning grammar as well as learning to speak another language I have to say that I now view them are being nearly two separate endeavors, although I see that much more clearly now than I ever did. And having now given it some thought this is my theory.
I see the time I spend conversing in Spanish, reading Spanish literature and listening to Spanish as the way I learn to speak the language.
But the hours I spend engrossed in a Spanish grammar book or researching finer grammatical points of Spanish grammar on the net are spent I think, even subconsciously, with a view to teaching rather than learning, sharing rather than just knowing.
Of course I am learning at the same time, satisfying my curiosity and stimulating my mind, which I find a most pleasant endeavor, but having taught a number of different subjects over the years I think I enjoy learning about grammar so that if I want to teach it or explain it or if I am questioned about the language then I will I know the reason why things are said a certain way.
I appreciate Ian Hill's analogy of grammar being to language what scores are to music but I think that even that can fit with the 'sharing' concept. After all someone who plays by ear and can't read music or write it can still compose music and to a limited degree share it or teach it but by knowing how to read and write a score he can much more easily teach and share his music with others.
Of course I could just be looking for an altruistic reason for my passion for grammar where none exists and I may love it purely for selfish reasons such as mental stimulus and as an intelligent endeavor but either way I'm afraid it's an addiction I'm quite happy to indulge ;P
For some reason I always imagine grammar as being the foundations of a language and verbs as being the keys!
.
We may be able to make ourselves fairly well understood without using grammar correctly, but it's what the language is built upon, so to trully understand the language we must understand - and use - grammar correctly (at least most of the time!).
.
And, with verbs, the more you have access to, the more you can explain yourself ...and the more doors you can open!
When you learn a second language, it may not be intutive as when you learned first because you are thinking in terms to your first, which I find is the source of most mistakes . So you may need to focus a little bit more on grammar especially syntax. I.You need to know for example how to conjugated verbs, but do you really to know the differences between each verb type_ agree a little with the first video I have learned a lot express stuff by listening too and getting corrected which really how a little kid learns.
Yes, unless you want to sound like this:
Four year ago I want car white big for birthday when live in the state over there.
I don't understand what this site is about if most people would frown upon the study of grammar. As I understand it, it is one of the things offered here aside from vocabulary and others. Furthermore, I don't see the point of people coming to this site if they're not willing to learn grammar, or at least the basics of it. I would understand if natives converge on a non-language learning site and tell each other how students of their language are "missing the point" because they study grammar "too much". But this IS a language-learning site! If it is indeed unimportant, then should one just watch Spanish shows & movies and read Spanish literature and wonder at the words used, how they position themselves with respect to each other, and never worry about why one word agrees with the other, why he should say something this way instead of another? Therefore, shall he not say anything that he has not heard of before, since he wouldn't have a way to correct himself, given that he doesn't know nor want to study grammar?
I guess my problem is that grammar is categorically being considered unimportant in the mastery of a language. I agree that immersion is, indeed, still the best way to fluency, but as has been pointed out a lot here in this site, not all people get that privilege, and thus, we resort to other media like film & books. If you're a second or third-language learner, it would help if you know at least a little. You don't need to be a grammarian and learn 10,000 rules. Sometimes words just click and sound right; however, sometimes they don't, and that's when you usually run into your grammar books or post a question in the forum, because you want to understand. That's what grammar is for me anyway.
There are a lot of guitarists who vehemently believe that learning to read music is actually detrimental to your ability to play, and they go berserk if the conversation drifts into music theory. Strangely, this phenomenon does not seem to occur with players of other instruments.
