I wish we would not confuse teaching grammar to non-native speakers to
teaching grammar
to native speakers.

"William J. McCleary" wrote:
>
> As for ESL, wasn't it the work of somebody named Krashen that suggested
> that studying grammar doesn't work in ESL any better than it does for
> native speakers of English? I think he said that it was the use of English
> rather than the study of English that really helped people learn English.

Bill, Steve Krashen has said many things and most of them are wrong.  I
have
had several exchanges with him recently on a list devoted to foreign
language
teaching.  There is an overwhelming amount of  evidence that the only
way to develop competence in a second language is explicit focussing on
form.  Perhaps the most recent
review of this literature can be found in

Doughty, C. & Williams, J (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form.
In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.) (p 197-261) New York: Cambridge.

I have tried publically to have Krashen consider the implications of
Platt, E. and Troudhi, S. (1997).  Mary and her teachers: A
Grebo-speaking child's place in the mainstream classroom.  Modern
Language Journal, 81, 28-49. This article reports on the "learning" of a
young girl submerged in an content classroom with a teacher who followed
a Krashen-inspired pedagogy.  He hasn't.

However, we must keep in mind that native speakers come into the
classroom already knowing a great deal about English.  By definition,
non-native speakers do not.  The kinds of problems which native speaker
have with the grammar of English is fundamentally different than the
problems that non-native speakers have.  One of the ways to look at this
difference is to examine a grammar handbook written for native speakers
and one written for non-native speakers.  For example, I have never seen
a grammar book written for native speakers that deal with do-support,
the article system, much-many distinction, etc.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University