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.


Yes, Stephen Krashen (I believe he still teaches at UC Santa Barbara - or is
it UCLA?), in _The Power of Reading_ ,  discusses the idea that increased
reading (he calles it "FVR - Free Voluntary Reading") - in massive
quantities, to use his terminology - will result in the "absorption" or
"appropriation" of solid language skills, most of which will have a positive
impact on writing. He does, however, also point out that direct instruction
of grammar, and even the use of those dreaded handbooks of ours, though
limited, can be useful in removing the remnant errors that have not been
"filtered out" by such massive reading. He also suggests that such
instruction will be more effective on "competent readers" (_The Power of
Reading_. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1993: 69-72).

I don't know what else Krashen has to say in his other books, notably _The
Input Hypothesis_, most of which are about language acquisition and
bilingual education. I think he is quite clearly unapposed to the direct
teaching of grammar, within limits, however.
Does anyone else have some insights about this question?

Paul E. Doniger
The Gilbert School
"Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her." - G.
B. Shaw