David Mulroy writes:

"My impression is that ignorance of grammar has caused a
serious decline in writing ability among college students and has made it
impossible for most of them to learn a foreign language.  (In this
respect, my campus is typical.  With the possible exception of Spanish,
the foreign language departments are all dying.) ... There are schools
that teach grammar systematically from the third grade on.  Anecdotal
evidence suggests that
their students do extremely in all aspects of the language arts."

With David, I root for a return of systematic grammar instruction to the
earlier grades. But we need to remember that the value of direct grammar
instruction in learning language, whether mastering a native formal
style or a foreign language, is still disputed among language-learning
experts. We know that immersion in the target language with practice
that happens in real communicative contexts -- _doing_ things with
language -- is very effective in promoting language acquisition, even
without explicit grammar instruction. This is especially true for
younger children, but not only for them. Older learners can acquire
quite a lot this way as well. I believe that anyone who wants to make a
case for grammar as a language-learning tool had better review the
literature on language acquisition -- first- and second-language
acquisition -- before making claims about grammar's value. I studied
lots of French and German grammar in high school and college, but began
to approach fluency when using the language for real communication every
day. No doubt the grammar provided a foundation, but it sure didn't do
the whole job. And these were second languages. Children bring a
developed subconscious grammar to native-language instruction that the
foreign-language learner lacks.

As to the anecdotal evidence, there may be several reasons for these
children's success in language arts. Grammar instruction may be one, but
is it the strongest factor? This is speculation, but I am convinced that
_reading_ is what best helps children acquire formal standard English.
Generous exposure to the kind of language a child is to acquire, coupled
with a motivating context, can go a very long way towards promoting
acquisition. I believe grammar is a support to this learning, but not
the central instrument. I would bet that, if we examined the curricula
of these schools, we would find not only grammar, but also lots of
reading and lots of writing practice, and a general promotion of
analytical and critical thinking. Another thing I am convinced of is
that 80% of the trouble students have with writing is trouble with
thinking, not language. They are not being asked to think in
disciplined, analytical, critical ways. Hours and hours of TV, poor
rhetorical models in public debate, advertising and political
propaganda, shift of focus from learning for the sake of cultivating the
mind to learning for the sake of being economically productive ... all
of these are, I feel, major contributors to the troubles we see in
writing -- not to mention other college subjects. I am amazed at my
students' inability and reluctance to solve linguistics problems in any
kind of efficient, systematic way. I hear similar anecdotes from
professors across the liberal arts curriculum.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-259
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
                                       **
"Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank  Oppenheimer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~