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 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~