How many here are trying to learn Spanish without a grammatical foundation?
It appears that a common reason for both English and Spanish speakers becoming frustrated in the attempt to learn language is the lack of basic grammatical knowledge.
12 Answers
Depending on the level of Spanish that you wish to learn, I don't see a lack of basic grammatical knowledge as a real obstacle. Could you not make yourself understood in English until you studied English grammar in school or did you learn from mimicking speech patterns? Isn't that basically why dialects exist, because people mimic the speech patterns of the people around them. I would much prefer to learn Spanish by immersion and not from a grammar book, but we don't all have that opportunity. Perhaps, my speech would be grammatically incorrect, but I would be able to hold a meaningful conversation. But until learning by mimicking speech patterns is possible, it's back to the grammar book.
I was in school in the 1960s - 1970s in the UK and we were never taught grammar beyond the very basics. It wasn't a failure of the state education system, I went to a private school, it was simply out of fashion at that time.
We learnt what was correct by hearing it and by reading a lot. I managed to get a good grade in my English Literature and English Language exams. Yet you could sum up my knowledge of English grammar on half a piece of A4 paper.
This lack of theoretical knowledge hasn't hindered me at all until I came to study Spanish, suddenly I find text books and teachers talking about parts of speech i have never heard of. I have learnt more about the theory of grammar in the last 12 months than I did in the previous 40 plus years.
I don't really think a formal knowledge of grammar is important to the development of your native language, being surrounded by people who speak well and reading widely are far more important. I do find it increasingly fascinating though and find myself looking things up more and more and I am very pleased that the education system has now changed and my kids have been taught more grammar in primary school than I learnt through my entire time at school.
We learnt what was correct by hearing it and by reading a lot. I managed to get a good grade in my English Literature and English Language exams.
This statement is very telling. In my opinion, language proficiency is generally a function of both the quality and quantity of language to which one has been exposed.
I would agree with that. For adult learners, a balance of grammar, reading, movie/video watching, listening, talking and, best, immersion, all add up. I also notice there are a lot of learners who do not get past the grammar. There is a time to study and a time to just get it out there.
I'm not sure I agree with this assertion.
Language studies which focus heavily on grammar turn the language into a series of abstractions. It's true that studying grammar can give us a skeleton on which to build, but if we are not already intimately familiar with the overlying appearance of the structures and the tissues themselves then even knowing how the tissues connect to one another, we are still likely to be left with nothing more than a grotesquely garish mishmash of flesh, a hulking Frankenstein monster who, despite its superficially correct form will still not meet the aesthetic standards of those it was meant to emulate.
But perhaps I have ventured too far into the realm of fancy with this particular metaphor. More clearly stated: It is my belief that true language acquisition is built upon repeated exposure to actual usage and not upon abstract grammatical concepts. Spending five hours conjugating verbs does not prepare one to use the language naturally. Training of this nature gives us neither the confidence nor the experience to be able to pluck a verb from our head and place it properly in a sentence to express our thoughts. It might be better to spend the same five hours listening to a meaningful and engaging conversation, a conversation in which certain syntactic structures would be presented yet would go largely ignored, or rather, left unanalyzed, in favor of the more immediate need to try to catch hold of and comprehend the various words and phrases aimed in our direction. Invariably, words and phrases would be repeated, and with repeated exposure, a rudimentary form of the language would begin to take shape in our minds. This form would be the framework upon which we might build, or perhaps, sculpt out our understanding of the language.
Of course this does not mean that I think that grammar does not have its place. Quite the contrary. Grammar can be a very useful tool, but it should not be at the forefront of one's studies—especially early on—if the goal is fluidity with the language.
To me, learning a language in abstracto (i.e. exclusively, or even predominantly, through the study of abstract grammatical principles) is akin to using connect-the-dots coloring pages to teach a person to draw a bear. While such a method might eventually garner a reasonable facsimile of the animal in question, or at the very least, a rudimentary outline of its figure, if the person has never before laid eyes on a bear, it will be very unlikely that the picture will be able to be reproduced without resorting to the tedious process of connecting the dots. Whats worse, to get a more aesthetically appealing product requires the use of ever more numerous and complexly arranged dots, yet this also has the effect of making the process that much more tedious and difficult to repeat. This is not the method by which true artistry (whether linguistic or otherwise) arises. It is not enough to simply "connect the dots" with the goal of producing a shape whose final form we are not even qualified to judge.
It would be much better to learn to draw the bear through imitation, to first study various instances of the bear, to become intimately familiar with its form, to actually know what a bear looks like before trying to set pencil to paper. Likewise, I think this is true of language as well. Rather than building it up from pieces, iIt makes much more sense to have first been exposed to the language, to have heard it, to be able to recall or recognize its finished form.
Of course this does not mean that grammar cannot be included to bolster our understanding and abilities. After all, most trained artists study to develop an intimate understanding of human anatomy and physiology in refining their abilities to draw the human form. To this end, I believe that studying grammar is more of a refining process than it is a building process.
Long story short: If you're going to draw a bear, having a clear image in your head of what a bear is supposed to look like is certainly more rewarding than simply connecting the dots.
It my opinion the fact that children learn to speak and understand without knowing grammar does not mean that adults MUST or should do the same. It would be impossible to teach a child grammar before they can speak - but all adults can already speak a language.
Some people play music by ear but those that can play from a score can play anything.
Grammar is a sort of shorthand (like a music score) - but don't let it "get in the way" of communicating which is what we all want to do.
Update
The reason that most teaching books for English learners do not contain any foreign language and that the "Total Immersion" idea became popular has nothing to do with it being the "best" way to learn English. It is because the same books are used in the UK USA Russia China Egypt etc.- and that means no foreign language can be included; especially in classes with students from different countries of origin.
It is probably the same for all teaching books of other languages.
However when I was at school in England I had 2 years of French - it was almost a waste of time because it was all grammar !!
I think it is extremely important for adult learners to have a sound grammatical understanding both of their native language and of the target language.
Immersion is important, but it can only get you so far. Children do learn language that way and it seems things like Rosetta Stone and even this site try as much as possible to recreate that sort of experience. Adults need that kind of exposure, of course, but the ability of the brain to process language like we all did as children is lost by the time we are adolescents.
My mother's family emigrated to the United States from Lithuania at the turn of the 20th century. My great grandmother, who was an adult when she came to the US, never spoke more than a few words of English. My grandmother, who was a very young child when she arrived here, spoke English fluently as an adult, but with a distinct accent. My mother speaks English like any US native born speaker, as do I.
This is a pattern that seems common to the immigrant experience in the US. Certainly the ability to provide for one's family in a new country is a compelling reason to learn a foreign language, yet many adult immigrants never achieve fluency in the second language despite their best efforts.
I think that when an adolescent or adult student is optimistic about learning a new language it can be easy to forget that this is a process that works against biology. It is not impossible by any means to learn a second language, but it is a undertaking full of unseen pitfalls. All any of us can do is read, study, listen, practice and learn.
I agree with Q up to a point that we learn from imitating the speech patterns of significant people in our lives: firstly our parents and our siblings and if applicable our extended family such as grandparents aunts and uncles or cousins,
When we start attending nursery school and later Primary school or ''Big school'' as young children sometimes call it then we learn from teachers and helpers we trust and respect, and to some extent from our peers.
So up to this time we have laid a grammatical foundation for our speech and language, however faulty that may later be seen to be. It is only when we formally learn grammar from English teachers at school that we begin to realize how stable or shaky our foundation of grammar really is! By that time it can be very difficult and time consuming to unlearn what has been incorrectly learnt and learn again what we should have learnt It is usually at this stage that young people give up on trying to improve their grammar.
This could possibly explain why standards of grammar have deteriorated over generations and led to more colloquial expressions and a greater divergance between what is grammatically correct and what is gradually being accepted at street level as acceptable English. It could also account for the reason why foreign students can often speak better English from a grammatical viewpoint than native speakers...they have been taught the grammatically correct way from the beginning
Just in case you think I am arguing in favour of a return to such standards I am not! I recognise the value of grammar and colloquial speech practised at street level by ordinary people both forms are valid and have their place!
To come back to Q's points we don't find that a lack of grammatical knowledge impedes the development of our language skills quite the contrary: too many grammatical rules would hinder our ability to communicate in real time with people! We wouldn't have time to consult our grammar books or memorize the rules as to when to use the indicative v the subjunctive or the imperfect v the preterite or simple past! By the time we may have realized what our response should have been the opportunity would have passed us by hours if not days ago 
Such approaches are totally unworkable..instead we should just keep learning from the native speakers and teachers and learn to strike a balance between the natural fluency of the native speakers who know how to express themselves without having to think things through and the correct form shown in books!
These are only my personal views which I have modified after considering the views expressed in responses posted by respected natives such as Lazarus, Gekkosan, Cogumela and Heidi just to name a few! You are naturally free to disagree just give me good reasons why you think you are right and I may be wrong on such matters.
Yes, I think the public education system (in the USA) has let us down!
I, for one, have struggled over the years with grammar. I did not have the best grammar teachers all through my school years. When I reached college, it made it even more difficult. I have learned quite a bit over the years, but my knowledge of proper English grammar is still lacking. So, therefore, it IS harder to learn another language in my opinion.
I've learned grammar. I can't imagine what my world would be like if I hadn't.
I do remember that my understanding of English grammar was pretty weak until I started High School Spanish classes. If I didn't learn enough Spanish, I was more than well rewarded with all the English grammar that become very clear to me as a result. My English writing (and maybe speaking?) improved suddenly then.
I'm not really answering your question, but I feel that knowledge of grammar is no impediment, and nobody should use "organic learning techniques" as an excuse to disregard grammar. Just my 2-cents worth.
you mean the public education system let us down?
