How we still teach languages like Latin – And why it’s slowing you down

Why are language courses so grammar-intensive, and is it useful?

The persistence of grammar-based language teaching: a cognitive and historical perspective

Introduction: The legacy of dead languages in living classrooms

If we keep doing what we’ve always done, we’ll keep getting the same results. So, we innovate! But if we innovate on a faulty foundation, we simply construct new mistakes with more sophistication. True progress requires both fresh ideas and a firm grasp of why the old ones took root in the first place.

Consider this: why does foreign language instruction still hinge on teaching grammar theory? Why are students conditioned to believe that studying the rules of a language is the key to speaking it?

One key answer lies not in applied linguistics, cognitive science nor in best pedagogical practices, but in history—specifically, the way education evolved from the teaching of Latin and Ancient Greek, two languages that haven’t been spoken natively in over 1,300 years.

A system designed for reading, not speaking

Latin and Ancient Greek, the cornerstones of classical education, were languages of scholars, clergy, and gentry—not of street merchants or farmers. Their primary use was literary, and their teaching methods reflected that.

The objective was not fluency but deciphering texts. Reading comprehension and translation were paramount; pronunciation was secondary, and speaking was an afterthought.

Over centuries, these classical languages became synonymous with education itself, shaping the way modern languages would be taught. The result? A model built to analyse languages, not acquire them.

How Greek and Latin shaped education as we know it

The tradition of studying grammar before communication can be traced directly to how Greek and Latin were taught in medieval and Renaissance Europe. During these periods, education was primarily a privilege of the clergy and the elite, who needed Latin not for conversation, but to access scholarly, legal, and religious texts.

Classical education was not about speaking but about mental discipline—an exercise in logic and structure. Grammar study was a form of intellectual training, a way to cultivate rigorous thinking rather than practical communication.

Students memorized declensions, conjugations, syntactical rules, and translation exercises—not because they needed to chat in Latin, but because command of these structures was considered a mark of an educated mind.

When mass education systems emerged in the 19th century, Latin and Greek teaching methods were simply transferred to modern languages like French, German, and English. The implicit assumption was that if this approach worked for Latin, it must work for all languages.

The problem? Latin was, and continues to be, a dead language. French, German, and English are not.

What had been an effective way to analyse ancient texts became a dysfunctional method for teaching students how to actually communicate.

Why grammar-based learning endures: The inertia of institutions

Many students who want to learn French or another new language will sit through years of foreign language instruction but will still struggle with basic language skills and won’t reach conversational fluency.

This is not a controversial claim; it’s an observable fact. Yet, the grammar-translation method remains the default approach in many language schools. Why?

1. Path dependence – Education systems tend to preserve traditions, even long after they cease being effective. Latin and Ancient Greek set the blueprint for language teaching, and that model persists, even when applied to languages meant for everyday communication.
2. Cognitive effort – Grammar exercises are tidy, structured, and easy to teach. By contrast, immersion-based learning—where students acquire language through interaction—is messy, unpredictable, and cognitively demanding for both teacher and student.
3. Standardized testing – High-stakes exams tend to measure what’s easiest to quantify, and grammar rules lend themselves to multiple-choice formats. A spontaneous conversation in a second language? Not so much.

The psychology of “Knowing” a language

This obsession with grammar also stems from how we define “knowing” a language.

If you ask someone whether they “know” French or Spanish, they’ll often measure their knowledge and competence in terms of rules—verb conjugations, noun genders, tenses—rather than focusing on their actual French language skills, such as conversational fluency and the ability to communicate effectively with others.

But this is like defining musical ability by how well one can recite the theory of cord progression rather than by how well one can play the piano.

In reality, language is something we acquire instinctively, not through rigid formulas.

Human beings acquire their native language (also called their first language or mother tongue) through exposure, interaction, and the need to communicate—not by diagramming sentences.

No toddler says, “Before I attempt this utterance, let me first ensure my subject-verb agreement is in order.”

Attempts at change and resistance to innovation

For the past 70 years, the fields of linguistics, cognitive science, and education have provided deep insights into how people acquire language.

Immersive approaches, communicative language teaching, and task-based instruction all offer superior alternatives to the grammar-translation model.

Classes should prioritize helping students acquire the linguistic material needed to continue practicing and using the language in their own time. The focus should be on real-world application, ensuring that what is learned in class is reinforced through daily use outside structured lessons.

And yet, change has been slow. Why?

The problem isn’t just the method—It’s also in the training

In many cases, the bottleneck isn’t theory but teacher training.

Take, for instance, CELTA—the most widely recognized English teaching certification. This course, spanning 120 hours contact hours, covers lesson planning, classroom management, and teaching different skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening).

But crucially, only six of those hours involve actual teaching practice.

Few other fields would accept such minimal training as adequate preparation for real-world instruction.

By contrast, a typical undergraduate degree in areas such as education, psychology, medicine, or social work requires thousands of contact hours, including hundreds of hours of supervised practice and critical analysis.

Being a well-trained language teacher does not necessarily mean undergoing extensive formal education.

What matters most is a deep understanding of how languages are learned, which can come through structured training, independent research, or a critical approach to the subject—its history, its future, and its practical applications.

What’s more, many language teachers have never researched or studied second-language acquisition.

They replicate the methods they themselves were taught with, perpetuating an outdated system.

The case of English: When grammar obstructs communication

The grammar-first mindset is not confined to the teaching of foreign languages.

In some parts of the United States, even first-language instruction was grammar-heavy until the 1990s.

Many adults who grew up in this system still equate “knowing” English with being able to parse a sentence into its grammatical components, even if they struggle to produce elegant prose or articulate complex ideas.

The mistake here is a category error: confusing language learning with language analysis.

The former is about communication; the latter is about dissecting a system that one already understands.

The efficiency problem: Why language learning takes too long

A stark example of inefficiency in traditional language courses is how long it takes to achieve basic proficiency. While estimates vary, let’s take French courses as an example:

• A1 Level (Beginner): Traditional French courses require 200+ hours, but immersion-based approaches can achieve the same result in 20 to 30 hours or under, given ideal conditions.
• A2 Level (Elementary): Many traditional French courses require 400+ hours, yet structured, high-intensity exposure could bring a complete beginner to this level in 40–50 hours.
• B1 Level (Intermediate): The inefficiencies of language courses become even more glaring, with learners often plateauing due to the emphasis on grammar drills rather than meaningful interaction.

In some cases, this inefficiency stems from a lack of understanding in how to teach effectively.

However, in others, teaching languages more efficiently is not always in the best interest of language schools or private tutors.

Faster progress can mean lower student retention, and in an industry where client acquisition is one of the most difficult and costly aspects of the business, there is little financial incentive to optimise the learning process.

This creates a paradox: language schools need students to succeed enough to feel progress, but not so efficiently that they no longer need classes.

As a result, many programs are designed to be long rather than effective, keeping learners engaged but delaying genuine fluency.

What needs to change?

If language teaching were to align with what we know from cognitive science, we would:

1. Prioritize speech and comprehension – The ability to understand and produce language should come before formal grammatical study, not the other way around.
2. Redefine competence – Success should be measured by communicative ability, not the ability to regurgitate rules.
3. Overhaul teacher training – Teachers need rigorous instruction in second-language acquisition, not just exposure to traditional methods.
4. Reimagine assessment – Language tests should emphasize spontaneous conversation and practical usage, rather than multiple-choice grammar questions.

Final thoughts: rethinking language teaching

The persistence of grammar-heavy instruction is not just a quirk of the education system—it’s a relic of history.

Latin and Ancient Greek, with their emphasis on reading and writing rather than speaking, created a framework that modern languages are still trapped in today.

Grammar has its place, but language is fundamentally a tool for communication, not an intellectual puzzle to be solved.

The best learning experiences happen in person, through active conversation, exposure to native speakers, real-world conversational materials, and practicing at one’s own pace.

The good news? The blueprint for better language teaching already exists.

If we align classroom instruction with what we now know about how the human brain acquires language, we can close the gap between theory and practice—and finally, make language learning as intuitive and effective as it should be.