Judy Diamondstone wrote:
>

> What I want to know, Bob, is why you think my last
> message or the Gee article I cited had anything to
> do with L2. I AM talking about L1. We are talking
> across lots of very different assumptions -- which
> is interesting! but hard to do.

I find the discussion change interesting, but here is part of the note
you wrote.

> 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.

You quote part of my message about L2 learning and then say "Jim Gee has
a
nice article on this controversy."  There is a controversy about the
value of
focusing on form in L2 research.

I don't think my interpretation that you are referring to my statements
about L2
research is that bizarre.

Bob Yates