Roberta King wrote:

I am not Nik Peachey, but with all due respect, Sundaresh, I shall respond to your statement from the ELTECS bulletin May 18, 2009, my understanding of which is that because written language is more formal and should stand the test of time, we should learn it and its formal grammatical structures before learning to speak. To do otherwise would be to coin your phrase "Reverse Engineering". I think you have failed to take into account the natural development of language. Language was spoken first, then written and after many years scholars attempted to control the language with such standards as grammar and orthography.

In a living language, these standards are written in sand, not in stone because no matter how much we want our written words to last for aeons, the language changes to the point where even if we followed all the rules and regulations of our times, someone in the future would find it difficult to comprehend due to its constant changes. We can take Chaucer and Shakespeare as excellent examples of that. Their works have passed the test of time, but to study them and understand them completely, one needs to study the language of the time in which they were written. In my opinion, I don't think this is going to change.

As far as teaching a foreign language is concerned, I believe that we need to do so in a more natural way. That is, we need to begin our students with listening and speaking first and then carry on to reading and writing. This does not mean that we preclude reading and writing while teaching them to listen and speak. On the contrary, all four skills are linked and support each other. What we must do as teachers is to have an intimate knowledge of the language and use it correctly to model for our students. We should teach grammar inductively through proper usage and the material used in the teaching process. The majority of our students do not require formal grammar lessons. They usually want to communicate orally, which as you say is more ephemeral.

Speakers whether native or not make errors when they speak because that is the nature of language. It is also the nature of language to be ambiguous. Ambiguity is the result of the thought patterns involved in expressing oneself. In the written word, it can be lessened through good self-editing. If the student wants to be able to write as well as a native speaker (and sometimes that is quite easy because many native speakers do not write very well!) he or she must then study grammar in all its glory. The best writers in a foreign language are usually those with a deep understanding of their own language because they can relate the grammatical structures in the target language to their own language. I also believe that you underestimated students' abilities to pick up structures. It is up to us as teachers to help them recognize speech patterns and writing patterns, as well as encourage them to become autonomous learners. Without their interest and self-motivation, they will never spend the time necessary to become competent language users (around 1,000 hours within a relatively short period of time, according to the last survey I read).

Therefore, I believe that your idea of teaching grammar first is "Reverse Engineering" and will make it far more difficult for a student to master the language. Of course, Sundaresh, you are entitled to your opinion. I can only say that in practice, learning grammar confuses the student and makes communicating more difficult.
Best regards,

Roberta King,
UAEH, Pachuca, Mexico