First of all a few words about myself. I am a retired mathematician and I still have a strong interest in Artificial Intelligence. English is my first language. I thus tend to look at other languages in an English -> way. When I was at school, which is now a very long time ago we were taught Latin and French in the following way. We started off with some very simple sentences and then moved on to the main part of the course. This was the steady introduction of new pieces of grammar. With each new piece of grammar we had a passage to translate Latin/French -> English, followed by some sentences and a passage of English -> Latin/French. For each passage we learnt some new vocabulary. At the end when we sat our examinations we were reasonably proficient in our languages.

A language basically consists of two things. It consists of vocabulary and it also consists of a way of putting words together to create sentences and, in short make sense. This is termed “Grammar”. Grammar consists of such things as tense structure, parts of speech, the order in which you put words. English has a word order Subject, Verb, Object, and adjectives precede nouns. I am told the word order in Hindi is similar, although Hindi (like Arabic) uses inflexion rather than prepositions. This is what I have been told about the problems.

“Problems start with same sounding words, inflexion, prepositions. We do not have Prepositions par se, but “karak-bibhakti” which works like Prep/Conjunction/even Adverb sometimes…through inflexion as you say….:-)”

The way in which prepositions and pronouns are treated is a key feature of grammar. English inflects a verb ending to achieve persons and tenses, but does not inflect nouns, except to add an “s” for plurals.

Chomsky postulated a Universal Grammar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

Different languages, of course have got different implementations of this grammar. How do we translate from one language to another. Basically we have to parse out language, that is to say decompose it into its grammatical elements. Once we have done this we can create an equivalent structure in another language and then translate.

How do we use language and how can we learn a second language? How conscious are we of grammar. In our own language grammar is something we take for granted. It is “hard wired” into us. How do we learn a second language? Is using “heuristics” or trial and error a cost effective way of doing it? Well when we learn our own language we do it heuristically. Yes we have no real alternative. No one is there to explain our own language to us. Is this an efficient process? Well when we are toddlers we devote a considerable fraction of our time to acquiring language, if we were to devote as much time to learning English as one spends learning Hindi, English would totally dominate the secondary school syllabus. My contention is that without grammar learning a second language will take you, perhaps not as long as you spend learning your first, but considerably longer than if the language were explained to you in grammatical terms.

How much grammar you require depends also on what level you aspire to get to. In England we also had this debate and grammar teaching was neglected. The result seems to be that for GCSE which is the basic examination sat at the end of middle school, the competence appears to be what might be described as “Tourist Level”. That is to say a number of words and phrases are learnt, without any real understanding of structure. To get beyond this “tourist” level requires a knowledge of grammar.

http://tesl-ej.org/ej25/r9.html Describes implicit and explicit learning of grammar. To understand language at all you need implicit grammar. My contention is that the quickest way to get this is to teach grammar explicitly. All the evidence seems to indicate that grammar is difficult to learn heuristically and that the heuristic approach produces Tourist Level language.

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm

This reference is quite interesting. It dispels the myth that languages are learnt more rapidly when we are young. Toddlers are :-

1) Less ambitious in terms of the level of their own language and any language they wish to acquire.
2) Devote more effort to learning language.

How important is a second language? I would say that in India English is of supreme importance. English is the main language of Science. You cannot go into Science, except in a lowly capacity unless you have a good knowledge of English.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep252007/750.pdf

The same thing is also true of the commercial world. No other subject has these imperatives attached to it. Quite apart from the external world India must become a united society. You cannot have a society when people from different parts of the country cannot talk to one and other.

Indians and other non native English speakers need to learn English and a matter of vital necessity. What about native English speakers? The English, and even more so the Americans are notorious at not learning languages. They take the line The wogs (a rather disparaging term for foreigners) can learn English. This I think is a dangerous attitude for a number of reasons. Of course learning a foreign language lacks the immediacy of foreigners learning English, but I feel the effort to understand one and other cannot be one way. The universal adoption of English is creating resentment. The French are showing this publicly, but it is just below the surface in a large number of countries. This resentment can make itself felt in terms of export orders, that Britain desperately needs.

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm Learning a second language boosts brain power. research shows that people who are bilingual have better brain development than those who are not. Suppose the “wogs” are actually brighter than native English speakers. Suppose that an illegal Spanish speaking childminder actually gives your child a better chance in life. Not as incredible as it might seem.