I'd like to join the chorus of list participants who have expressed appreciation of Joanna Rubba's message. The thrill reverberates ...! And I too want to be down on the short list of people interested in the book draft. THANKS. YES, grammar is meaningful/ has a semantic basis, and, as Bill McLear implied, HAS to be distinguished from the "linguistic etiquette" that prescribes a standard variety for everyone. Based on my own experience, bringing the "different, not deficient" view of dialect variation into teaching about language can be the key that unlocks the 'at risk' students' interest in language. One of my students developed a curriculum unit on dialect based in part on Wolfram's curricular exercises that invite students to discover grammartical "rules" for different dialects. She started with similar activities based on My Fair Lady, followed by students' research on their own talk with peers, with parents, with teachers. A great introduction to sociolinguistic facts (language varies by group; by speaker; by situation) that are shown IN THE GRAMMAR. The fascination with grammar can only begin once it has been made visible, once it has been written down so its systematicity can be described. Re: Paul's question, how to "fix" students' grammar, I think the problem might be in the question. If you teach the distinction between grammar, which does have a semantic basis, and those conventions which do not, or for which the semantic basis holds ONLY for writing (like the distinction between "their/ there") then pointing out the 'error' does not impugn the language that students use to make sense. It's an error only with respect to standard written English, which is itself inappropriate in many informal settings. Courtney Cazden tells the story of Martha Demientoff (sp) an Athabaskan teacher who would teach the differences between "bush English" and Standard English by setting up two big dinners, one a pot latch, where ONLY bush English could be spoken, the other a formal dinner party where ONLY the standard could be spoken. The students not only played the different roles with the zest of role play, but they also then talked about the differences, how it felt to be taking on these different roles (which is what code switching is about -- it's not just a matter of technicalities; it's a shift in social identity). Janet, are you familiar with this account? I am so delighted to see these issues brought up on this discussion list. Grammar is not an out-of-context mechanical exercise. I completely agree that the code phrase, "teaching grammar in context" becomes an excuse not to teach any grammar. But teaching grammar out of a meaningful context works least well for those students who need it most. Pam Dykstra's message is also helpful. An entire curriculum can be built on speaking versus writing contrasts. I tend to use systemic functional description with an article by Chafe as background. Pam, I'm curious to know your reference for Chafe -- was it his recent book, _Discourse, Consciousness & Time_ ? (I have it at home but I haven't yet read it.) It's interesting but I suppose obvious how Chafe's more cognitively oriented description of the contrasts between the two modes leads one to the issues that are also central in SFG.... Thanks to all, Judith Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake