Here is where one's idea about what it means to know language leads to very different ideas and very different teaching implications.

>>> "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> 09/05/11 9:00 AM >>>
    One reason why we should pay attention to the grammar(in effect, the language) the child brings is because that grammar is highly meaningful. It is deeply bound up with how that child has come to comprehend the world.  

. . . 
I have no idea what that means.   An example would be very useful.

For example, if a child does not have knowledge of how the past tense is formed in English, does that mean that the child has no knowledge of past events versus events happening now let alone events in the future?

If a child does not have complete knowledge of the pronominal system, does that mean the child is confused about references?

Does a child who says "him and me went to the store" comprehends the world differently than a child who says "He and I went to the store"?  How is that comprehension different?

If we take seriously the position  that grammar is "deeply bound up with" how we comprehend the world, then we should be deeply concerned with non-standard dialects.  After all, such dialects comprehend the world differently than the standard language.

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/