Eduard:
A few points --
(1) Arguments about universal grammar, etc. have bearing really on Craigıs
first question, not the other five. Unless Standard English is the childıs
first language (and it pretty much never is), ³school English² is an
additional code, and even ardent innatists (or, particularly, ardent
innatists) would not argue itıs acquired/learned the same way. And no one
claims literacy and composition skills are innate; the arguments are over
conscious attention and the effects of intervention.
(2) Craig has already made this next point, I think, but it bears repeating:
asking what people think the consensus about X is is different from asking
what X is.
(3) I take your real objection to be something along the lines of, ³if this
is the consensus on (1), the consensus is wrong.² I happen to agree with
most of Sampsonıs positions, and I can bore you half to death kvetching
about Chomsky. But to characterize his position as ³dead² or simply passé
is to adopt one of his more annoying rhetorical practices. There is current
research on the specific-innatist side, and current research on the
emergentist side. I happen to think evidence the latter is stronger, but
then I would, wouldnıt I? We all have to acknowledge the possibility of
bias.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
On 9/23/10 7:25 AM, "Eduard Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where people
> come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and all kinds
> of fiction. It is very entertaining to read all these language opinions based
> on personal FEELINGS. But this is not RESEARCH. Your conclusions are not worth
> three coffee beans because there is no empirical evidence to back them up.
> They are what people get when they turn the coffee cup over and try to divine
> how the day will run from the designs the dried dregs left on the inside of
> that cup.
>
> Research is something completely different. Most of those who participated in
> your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic Structures." But things have
> moved on. There is new reading. The "language organ" or Universal Grammar was
> an interesting idea fifty years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But
> you people need to read something recent before you think through the same
> questions. There is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his
> scool denied and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED.
>
> I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into the new
> millenium in language:
>
> 1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies.
> 2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson.
>
> and,
>
> "Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for language
> learning," by Ewa Dabrowska.
>
> You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A language." Any
> language, or just English? Considering the provincial perspective that
> dominates this e-mail list, it seems more than obvious that "A language" was
> referring to ENGLISH ONLY. But how about learning French, Spanish, German,
> Polish, Romanian, etc.? Do the same responses apply to them too? Can a simple
> "stealing (acquisition)" one of the above languages without any explicit
> instruction into the language do as well? My answer, is categoric "NO!"
>
> Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot
> learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language. The high
> morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language prevents the
> native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the language without
> hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French,
> Spanish, and other European languages.
>
> You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language
> research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky is
> a past thing! Long live Chomsky!
>
> Eduard
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
> Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>> > I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
>> > good faith
>> > summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
>> > I am
>> > leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>> >
>> > I have received some posts that didnıt go out to the list, and
>> > Iıll try
>> > to include those in a blanket response.
>> >
>> > 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
>> > that
>> > people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
>> > are
>> > growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
>> > wrong to
>> > assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
>> > the
>> > outside. Itıs also not clear what kind of modeling or
>> > interaction might
>> > be part of it.
>> >
>> > 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
>> > of
>> > literacy is rare. Thereıs not a clear consensus on how ³direct
>> > instruction² might influence that. A few people mention ability
>> > and
>> > motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
>> > engagement
>> > with complex texts or being interactively read to.² In those
>> > cases, it
>> > would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
>> > perhaps the
>> > result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>> >
>> > 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
>> > it
>> > comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
>> > language,
>> > but not so easily to those who donıt. Standard English is hard
>> > for those
>> > students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
>> > seem to
>> > require some attention and instruction.
>> >
>> > 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
>> > instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
>> > and
>> > conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
>> > person off
>> > list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
>> > strategies for
>> > reading complex texts ³later in life² and wishes he had been
>> > given them
>> > earlier. I like Johnıs observation, that readers are often
>> > ³instructed
>> > directly by the texts² they are reading. Iım not sure I agree,
>> > but itıs
>> > a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
>> > intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
>> > may be worth noting.
>> > It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
>> > doing
>> > reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
>> > focus on
>> > literary texts. Whatıs the current status of the phonics versus
>> > whole
>> > language debate?
>> >
>> > 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
>> > direct
>> > instruction, especially for those who donıt do it well. One
>> > respondent
>> > says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
>> > doesnıt.
>> > Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
>> > need a
>> > wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
>> > they are
>> > writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
>> > write
>> > without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
>> > that
>> > writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>> >
>> > 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
>> > interpreted. For those who interpreted ³leaning about language²
>> > as
>> > somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
>> > instruction
>> > is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
>> > their own.)
>> > There was some questioning of the value of learning about
>> > language
>> > outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
>> > easy,
>> > but much of it is hard.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> > interface at:
>> > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> > and select "Join or leave the list"
>> >
>> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> >
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the
> list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
