Thanks to Pam for all the references!

Thanks to Bob for insisting (by implication) that the
conflicting assumptions of this exchange be made explicit -
that is, there are different views of language at stake;
different "language ideologies"

However, I am still a bit confused by some of his assertions.

For instance, he responded to Johanna Rubba's message:

At 11:06 PM 1/12/99 -0600, you wrote:
>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.

as follows:
>Without specific examples here, it is difficult to figure out what kind
>of rules
>Johanna is referring to.....
(snip)
>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.

I understood Johanna's message to say just that as well. Before
I explain, here's a similar exchange:

Johanna wrote:
>> 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_.

And Bob responded:
>
>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.

Jim Gee has a nice article on this controversy over explicit/implicit
instruction, which many of you must know:

"First language acquisition as a guide for
theories of learning and pedagogy" in _Linguistics & Education
6_ (331-354) 1994

Vygotsky is also very useful for conceptualizing the role of language
in learning & development.

The 'rules'/constraints/grammar of one's native language
are generally tacit; they are acquired by paying attention to
something else -- to a communicative goal. They're acquired as
know-how. Nevertheless, through formal education or an explicit
intervention (as in Bob's learning that the term "data" is
grammatically plural) "rules" for one's native language may also
be LEARNED (as opposed to ACQUIRED) i.e., made explicit
(as opposed to remaining tacit). [Of course, the 'content' of
know-how and of conceptual/explicit knowledge is not the same..
the thing (language) is not the same as the name of the thing
(explicit understanding/ theory of language)

There is good reason to make tacit, procedural knowledge
explicit for literacy teaching and learning,
Formal writing IS different from everyday speaking,
but it draws on the same system of resources that
speaking draws on, plus those signs that compensate for
the environment of talk (e.g. "mechanics") - but it uses
the system differently (needs more of a lexicon; builds up
noun phrases, etc...) Even if students come from a highly
literate background, making their tacit knowledge of language
explicit gives them more control over it & makes it
more available for use in new and different ways.

Starting with activities and problems that invoke
particular features of language, wh. can then be made
explicit is a way of highlighting the linkage of forms
to functions/ communicative goals & it's just those linkages
or sets of linkages that the valued kinds of literacy
(i.e., professional/disciplinary, including literary specializations)
depend on --flexible adaptable uses of the system.

Sorry for the level of abstraction -- if anyone were to ask
I could at a later time say more.

Judith


Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183

Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake