Johanna Rubba wrote:

> Bob also seems to be confused on inductive learning of a native dialect's
> rules vs. deductive learning of standard rules. You can learn any rule
> either way; deductive learning or explicit discussion of rules isn't
> really necessary for language acquisition if other demands are met,
> namely, exposure and motivation, starting at an early enough age.

Without specific examples here, it is difficult to figure out what kind
of rules
Johanna is referring to.

I can think of some "rules" in English I learned explicitly.  Data, for
me, remains an uncountable, grammatically singular noun. I have to
remember that it is grammatically plural.

I am not sure that, if a student's dialect has non-standard forms for
past tense and participle forms, then that student is able to learn the
standard forms inductively.

> The reason explicit discussion of the grammar rules of nonstandard
> dialects is important is that it shows students that grammar can be a
> value-neutral tool for dissecting and understanding how _any_ dialect works;
> it shows them that their dialects are not chaotic, degraded versions of the
> standard, but are rule-governed and systematic; and it prompts discussion
> of usage standards, where they come from, and how they relate to the kind
> of prejudice manifested in the fact that journals do not accept articles
> which are written in nonstandard English. (Though this tradition may now
> serve the needs of wider communication, it began as a simple social
> prejudice, when one dialect of English gained privilege over others in the
> 17th and 18th centuries. No one can claim that the prejudice has totally
> faded.)

I very much agree with the assumptions about where the prejudice about
non-standard
dialects come from, but I wish I knew a convincing way to argue against
academic journals that reject papers which confuse there and their.

> There has been much discussion of the pedagogical value of explicit
> grammar instruction in the field of second-language-teaching. Most
> research and experience in this field shows that its benefits are marginal
> _if the desired goal is fluent, automatic use of the target language_.

I have no idea what this reference to "most research" refers to and
whatever
"explicit grammar instruction" means. I know the claims of Krashen but
the research he cites is not very convincing.

My reading of that research indicates that without some explicit focus
on grammatical form by the L2 learner that "fluent, automatic" and
target-like use of the target language is impossible.  The implications
of Klein and Perdue's work on the Basic Variety and Mike Long's "The
least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain" (TESOL
Quarterly, 4, 1990) are that there must be some attention to form.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University