I think there are two key questions we need to think about when we teach grammar to native speakers.

1) What does it mean to know grammar?

2) How do native speakers come to know that grammar?

Our answers to those two questions guide what we teach and how we teach.

Although both Craig and I believe grammar is essential in the curriculum, we differ on the answer to both questions and so our teaching suggestions are different.

It is clear to me that all native speakers come to the classroom knowing a great deal about grammar that has been acquired because of our biological endowment to learn language.  Grammar, from this point of view, is not the result of general cognitive capacities.  Now, my view might be incorrect, but I'm not quite sure Craig objects to this point of view because he has evidence it is wrong.  Rather, he objects to it because, he claims, it has relegated instruction in grammar to a minor part of the curriculum.  Here is his quotation from the 6th that lead me to say this:

>    If you think grammar is innate and meaningfully neutral, just a
> system of forms, then don't teach it. It just happens. If you see it as
> learned and deeply connected to cognition and discourse, then you ought
> to attend to it and not just expect it to happen.
>    There are views of language which support the teaching of grammar and
> views of language that support our current status quo. Bob and I are on
> opposite poles of that argument. 

I merely noted in my last post that the cognitive theories he cites are very concerned with knowledge EVERYONE has about particular properties of language.  Cognitive linguists do not seem to suggest huge variations that require instruction.  And, Langacker, to my knowledge, says nothing about variation in speakers' knowledge of grammar.

In answer to the second question, because I believe grammar is innate, it is less a question of how children "learn" grammar then it is a question of how those innate principles of all human languages are realized in the language they are being exposed to.  From this perspective, EVERY native speaker knows more about their primary language than they have been exposed to and variation in exposure is a minor issue.

In a post on the 6th, Craig wrote:

>  If, in fact, language is learned and not just "activated", and if
> interaction is a huge key to that, and if children differ radically in
> the kinds of language they bring to school, then there are huge reasons
> for rethinking our current practices.

I interpreted this statement to justify the teaching of grammar because some children "differ radically" in their knowledge of language because of the language they have been exposed ot.  In other words, Craig puts a great deal more importance on the language children are exposed to than I do.

He could be right when he says:

   Again, I don't ever remember saying that interaction alone accounts for
language. It is a critical component in any theory, including
generative. The rest of the sentence just confuses me.

 
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

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/