A few observations:


The language teacher in us seems to be answering this
question with an ideal student who comes in at level zero and progresses
through all the skills. Shift that model to a student who is fluent in a
language and must learn to become literate in that spoken language.



I have met many such cases in the Gulf. (Yes, the one located between Iran and
Saudi.) I would say the objective then is to have the structure laid bare so
that one can understand and expand upon the existing vocabulary and chunks of
language which one uses to communicate with others on a daily basis.



The question then becomes "Has one learned a language if one can
communicate fluently with others?" Native
speakers themselves must be instructed to pass into the literate stage. One can
sound out and catch the meaning of a known language. For example, a student who
is totally fluent in spoken English of the Southern United
 States might be taught to read and then could probably understand
a dialogue from Mark Twain.  


 


Grammar instruction is probably advisable for most second
learners if the student is not actually fully fluent in the language. Also, if
the grammar is significantly different than the first language, those
differences should be highlighted. We can extend these conclusions to
first language learners who are speaking a “dialect of their native language”
which has alternate grammar structures. 


 


I have come to these conclusions from my own personal
experience with the Arabic language.


 
----- Original Message --
From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2007 8:51:51 AM
Subject: Re: Instruction versus learning

Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  
At the moment, we simply do not have an agreed upon theory of how 
knowledge about language might carry over into both reading and writing. 
If we did, then we could measure the acquisition of knowledge as a 
separate step.
  Craig, 
  Shouldn't evidence of knowledge about language carrying over into both reading and writing form the basis of a theory?  Starting with the hypothesis that specific knowledge about language may improve reading and writing, couldn't we then gather evidence to support this hypothesis?  Can't we just measure the acquisition of knowledge and relate it to changes in reading and writing in order to develop a theory?  Does it matter if people agree with the theory? 
   
 
 Scott

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
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/





Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

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/