Eduard,
I'm not trying to sum up the conversation to this point as if it
were somehow conclusive. I actually thought of it as a kind of
research--not into language acquisition, but into the general views
about language acquisition that people on the list bring to our teaching
or our language discussions. I am trying to act as moderator, which
means I'm being a little careful not to argue too stridently for a position.
I agree that there is a new perspective developing through
usage-based approaches, and the people developing it are looking closely
at what actually happens. If they are right, there are implications for
teaching that grow out of that.
But maybe you could address that question. If language, including
grammar, is not innate, but learned interactively, how should that
affect our teaching?
Craig
Eduard Hanganu 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 didn’t go out to the list, and
> > I’ll 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. It’s 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. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> > instruction” 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.” 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 don’t. 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 “later in life” and wishes he had been
> > given them
> > earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> > “instructed
> > directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> > but it’s
> > 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. What’s 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 don’t do it well. One
> > respondent
> > says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> > doesn’t.
> > 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 “leaning about language”
> > 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/
|
