Once again, thanks for your support on my postings, and I have enjoyed
what Pam and Judy have been contributing. I think Bob Yates is unclear on
a few points, though.

How many rules of grammar are purely formally motivated depends on the
theoretical orientation of the analyst. Cognitive and functional
linguistics finds much  more semantic motivation than do the theories
generally called 'formal'. THere is a LOT of semantic motivation to talk
about. And I try that in my book.

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. The
reason we feel the need to discuss rules of standard grammar explicitly is
that our students haven't had those necessary demands met for standard or
formal standard English, and because we don't have the luxury of time for
them to spend months inductively internalizing the formal standard
dialect.

The reason explicit discussion of the grammar rules of nonstandard
dialects is important is that it shows students that grammar can be a
value-neutral tool for dissecting and understanding how _any_ dialect works;
it shows them that their dialects are not chaotic, degraded versions of the
standard, but are rule-governed and systematic; and it prompts discussion
of usage standards, where they come from, and how they relate to the kind
of prejudice manifested in the fact that journals do not accept articles
which are written in nonstandard English. (Though this tradition may now
serve the needs of wider communication, it began as a simple social
prejudice, when one dialect of English gained privilege over others in the
17th and 18th centuries. No one can claim that the prejudice has totally
faded.)

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_. It
may be much more useful if the goal is being able to catch nonaccepted
language during the editing process. Individual students will vary greatly
in their ability to become fluent, automatic users of formal, standard
English, depending on their backgrounds and current motivation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184     Fax: (805)-756-6374                   ~
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                           ~
Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba                     ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~