Robert:

If you allow me to speak for myself, I will state that 1. I recognize 
a natural predispositions for language in humans, but I do not think 
that there is evidence in favor of the notion that these inclinations 
are rule specific. 2. I believe instead that language acquisition and 
development are due to the general cognitive abilities of the brain. 
3. While I am fully aware that acquisition of language occurs through 
a natural process ( which we do not fully understand yet), and that 
it is no conscious or explicit in children, I also believe that after 
children reach a certain [{pre)school]age, implicit acquisition must 
be combined with explicit learning in order for children to acquire a 
full language system. 

Research shows that if learning never becomes explicit in language 
individuals will stagnate at a certain level of language proficiency, 
as is the case with many students we meet in college. The purpose of 
this forum, if I understand correctly, is to return explicit language 
instruction to the public school because we have come to understand 
that students who did not benefit from explicit language instruction 
have trouble communicating effectively, that is, speak and write in 
unformatted way, suffer from lack of logic and coherence, express 
themselves in a simplistic and rudimentary manner, and cannot abide 
by the principles which define Standard English. 

Given the social, political, and economic importance of mastering the 
American Standard English, I believe we agree that explicit language 
education is not something we can take lightly, but that we have all 
interest to give our students all the language skills they need in 
order to be successful in school and at their jobs.

Eduard 


On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Robert Yates wrote...

>There are at least three positions being considered here.
>
>1) My position is that part of our biological endowment is knowledge
>about language.  I have offered some evidence for such a claim.
>
>2) The position taken by Johanna and, I assume, Herb, is that our
>knowledge of language is the result of some general cognitive
>capacities.
>
>3) The position taken by Eduard is that language must be consciously
>learned.
>
>As Johanna and Herb have correctly observed, positions (1) and (2) 
both
>agree that by the time children start formal education they have a 
very
>complex knowledge of language.  The teaching implication that both of
>these positions reach is that this knowledge can be used to make this
>knowledge of language conscious.  
>
>On the other hand, the third position has to offer very different 
kind
>of teaching suggestions because children don't know much about 
language.
>
>
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 09/03/06 11:08 PM >>>
>1. The innateness argument is irrelevant to the question of whether 
or 
>not children have unconscious knowledge of what a noun is. However 
they 
>learned it, they have learned it well before age 5, but not 
consciously.
>None of us can access the knowledge and mental processes that are
>happening while we use language; they are not any more accessible to
>conscious awareness than is the work our brains are doing when we see
>color or walk. Our brains have billions of neurons, and only a small
>portion delivers conscious awareness.
> . . . 
>
>3. It is a truism in linguistics, proven by decades of research, 
that 
>infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers need no direct instruction to 
>learn their native language. Their brains are built to learn 
language 
>(whether through a brain organ devoted exclusively to language, as 
>Chomskyans believe, or through more-general cognitive processes, or 
>some mixture of the two). All they need is to hear language being 
used 
>around them, and for those around them to interact with them 
>linguistically (by talking with them, not teaching them what nouns 
>are). This learning process is very different from conscious 
learning 
>of grammatical terminology and analysis techniques. This _does_ 
require 
>instruction. But that instruction must be both accurate and 
>well-designed, which the current K-12 curriculum is not. I am 
wondering 
>whether either Eduard or Phil has looked at any of the language-arts 
>grammar materials currently being used in K-12 schools.
>
> 
>
>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/