We should be very careful about making claims that the role of grammar
instruction for native speakers is the same as the role of grammar
instruction for non-native speakers.

Johanna Rubba wrote:
> 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.

The only "language-learning" expert that I know who makes any claim that
immersion in the target language is sufficient for non-native speakers
is Krashen.  (Because of length, I will send a second message about what
Krashen has recently said about how far "comprehensible input" can take
a second language learner.)

We know of one very important difference between first and second
language learning.  No first language learner can decide that she will
not learn the language.  Many second language learners decide all the
time not to learn a second and they are successful with that decision.

For anyone who takes seriously the notion that immersion in a second
language "with practice in real communicative contexts" is sufficient,
I recommend the work by Klein and Perdue on over 70 adult learners in
informal second language learning situations all over Europe.  More than
half of the learners they studied for over three years did not progress
beyond what Klein and Perdue called the Basic Variety. The following
papers discuss this work.

        Perdue, Clive, & Klein, Wolfgang. (1992). Why does the production of
some learners not grammaticalize.  Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 14, 259-272.
        Klein, Wolfgang, & Perdue, Clive. (1997) The Basic Variety (or:
Couldn't natural languages be much simpler?)  Second Language Research,
13, 301-47.

Although there is reason to believe that children can be more successful
in second learning situations without formal grammar instruction, there
is evidence that "real communication" is not sufficient for ALL
children. I recommend the following articles for this evidence.

        Harklau, Linda.  (1994).  ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2
learning environments.  TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241-272.
        Platt, Elizabeth & Troudhi, Salah. (1997).  Mary and her teachers: A
Grebo-speaking child's place in the mainstream classroom.  Modern
Language Journal, 81, 28-49.

Platt and Troudhi, one of the most important pieces of classroom
research published in the last ten years, should be required reading for
anyone whose L2 pedagogy is based on the following claim.

> 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.

Mary's teachers followed exactly this belief and Platt and Troudhi show
Mary did not progress in learning English for the year she just "did"
things with language.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University